| Revision as of 04:58, 25 June 2013 editNuclearWarfare (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators83,664 edits →Popped on my watchlist: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:53, 25 June 2013 edit undoMarshalN20 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers15,094 edits →MarshalN20Next edit → | ||
| Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
| ::'''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 04:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC) | ::'''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 04:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::NW, yes, I was referring to that image. There was even a short discussion on this at the article's talk page not long ago (see ), where again we find Lecen making unwarranted insults ("No wonder this article sucks") when nobody had done anything that could be considered baiting. The image Lecen has included looks like a distorted version of Rosas with unnatural eyes and a strange facial formation (compare it with the others in the Wikimedia page ). My personal favorite (from the available options) is the black-and-white one (see ). | |||
| :::This aside, thank you very much for the advice. I will focus on cleaning my honor as an editor. I think that ] is a reasonably controversial article that I can bring to FA standards. Since the article's history section is partially mixed with Argentina, could I please get a minor exclusion to work on it? | |||
| :::]. I do, however, believe in procrastination. ;) | |||
| :::Best regards.--] | ] 06:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Popped on my watchlist == | == Popped on my watchlist == | ||
Revision as of 06:53, 25 June 2013
| This is NuclearWarfare's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
 Archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
I do understand ..
but I disagree with this — Ched : ? 18:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- also .. the "sig" is missing from your decline .. just letting you know. — Ched : ? 18:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Added the sig, thanks. And as for the other part of that edit, fair enough. Kumioko was clearly just making a big fuss out of nothing, but when I skimmed Beeblebrox's talk page and saw something like twenty posts in the last few hours, I figured that it things might be easier (if less just) to do things this way. NW (Talk) 19:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- My only concern is that letting the baby have it's bottle will only encourage further temper tantrums in the future, but I certainly don't intend to make any further fuss about this, more than enough has been said already. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how useful my comment was at Arb, but since I was involved in the last action that lead to this Arb case, I felt like I was obligated to say something. Same with Kumioko, not sure my comments had any effect, especially now. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 01:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- I can't speak for every Arb, but I do read every statement before voting at minimum, and I make sure to keep an eye out for the people I consider clueful. You're certainly on that list, and your comment seemed spot on to me. NW (Talk) 02:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Argentine history
I have some final questions about the Argentine history case. Do I open a request for clarification, or is it acceptable if I simply ask you? I don't want to break the ban by asking questions out of place, but I wouldn't want either to generate even more bureaucracy if it wasn't needed. Cambalachero (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Feel free to just ask me; if I feel it is something that should be addressed by the rest of the Committee, we can go through the formal process then. NW (Talk) 21:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- I want to know (with an actual explanation, not with just generalistic principles) why my evidence and comments in talk pages have been rejected. Specially the parts where I pointed that the current use of revisionist sources (and even before the whole discussion) is minimal and next to zero, and when I pointed the lack of relation between the historians criticized by Lecen and the the historians actually used in the article. I also want to know why all the simpler solutions have been ignored, going straight to the most severe one; I have never been blocked or sanctioned before ad I may have easily followed any condition imposed.
- Argentine history is not the only topic I have been editing, but it is the one I'm most interested in editing, and I would like to be able to do so again some day. I understand that if I stay editing other articles I can appeal the ban the next year, but with a speedy 0-10 vote against me in this case, do I really have a chance in such appeal, or would it be a waste of time? Which is the rationale to decide which appeals are accepted or rejected, what exactly do I have to do to be able to edit in Argentine history again? Also, would the appeal process involve the 3 users, or just me? Are the arbitrators the same, or others?
- Are modern politics included in the ban? And if not, how much back in time can I get? What about biographies of modern people, such as the current Pope or the current president?
- In any case, this message is not to start any discussion. I want just those clarifications, and then I will consider the case to be over. According to the answer I receive, I will decide if I try to work for a successful appeal by working in other articles, or if I simply leave wikipedia. Cambalachero (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- OK, the bulk of the first part comment I think is best not for here but should be laid out at WP:A/R/CL so that other Arbitrators can give their input if they need to. To summarize: I think the simplest answer though is that your comments were read but that Lecen's argument was simpler taken to be more credible. As to why we didn't vote on a narrower sanction, I don't know. I am recalling that there was a particular reason for it, but I cannot come to it except for the fact that we worried that any intersection of you and the topic area wouldn't be beneficial because of your tendency to point-of-view push, knowingly or not.
The full Arbitration Committee is the only body that hears sanction appeals.
Until January 2014, the membership of that body should stay the same; the membership list can be found at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Members. Appeals are done onwiki at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Any user may comment, including Lecen and M., but it is not as adversarial a process as this last one unfortunately was. I usually consider appeals de novo, with the qualification that I do not have the same time to spend on reading evidence for appeals that I do for reading cases. For a case like yours at this point in time, what I would be willing to support the most would be exceptions for individual or a small set of articles that you would want to advance, perhaps with a mentor attached. Should you appeal the full sanction at a later date, what I would want to see is evidence that independent reviewers agree that your work is clear of neutrality issues; writing content reviewed by other editors is often a way to do this.
My person opinion would be that anything in the last 15 years is fair game, especially the more non-contentious it is. Pope Francis or President Kirchner would both be fine to edit, but that you want to avoid any of their actions regarding the Dirty War. Try to clear the articles you edit with an Arbitrator before you do just to avoid any misunderstanding, at least for the first while; I would be happy to do that for you. NW (Talk) 02:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- OK, the bulk of the first part comment I think is best not for here but should be laid out at WP:A/R/CL so that other Arbitrators can give their input if they need to. To summarize: I think the simplest answer though is that your comments were read but that Lecen's argument was simpler taken to be more credible. As to why we didn't vote on a narrower sanction, I don't know. I am recalling that there was a particular reason for it, but I cannot come to it except for the fact that we worried that any intersection of you and the topic area wouldn't be beneficial because of your tendency to point-of-view push, knowingly or not.
MarshalN20
Dear NW,
I would appreciate if you could answer (all or some) the following questions (non-elaborate responses are fine):
- Is it a coincidence that the arbitrators replied after Lecen made a "plea" at the requests noticeboard for a sanction based on alleged editorial inhibitions due to harassment?
- You write that "Lecen's argument was simpler taken to be more credible". How was credibility determined?
- Why were the comments of non-involved users so easily dismissed? Was weight given to Lecen's claim of WP:CANVASS?
- Lecen has been warned to follow the behavioral guideline, but nonetheless has (and more than likely will continue) to exhibit the same behavior. What steps should I take once further evidence has been gathered in this regard?
- If, according to most arbitrators, I "baited" Lecen into making brusque comments, what made the topic bans better than an interaction ban?
- Why is it that I have been stamped with "tendentious editing" and "battleground editing" supported by admittedly weak diffs? What made these accusations, and the attached topic bans, better than a simple WP:TROUT (warning)?
- What should I do (if anything can be done) to demonstrate these accusations were excessive and clean my reputation? If I can demonstrate it, will the arbitrators make a clear amendment of it in the case file?
- In a month, as you recommended, may I seek an amendment that narrows down my current topic ban to topics concerning the history of the Empire of Brazil? How likely is this proposal to work? What would the arbitrators like to see (perhaps something such as my recent FA with Pisco Sour)?
These other set of questions concern article content:
- Lecen's recent edits in Juan Manuel de Rosas have focused on adding an image featured in Pacho O'Donnell's unreliable work (discussed in the arbitration case) as well as removing sourced information about Rosas' career as a Miguelete (soldier). He plans to "in short time" nominate the article for FA status. Although I do not disagree with the inclusion of Lynch's point of view (that Rosas was "probably absent" due to illness), his current edits indicate he plans to continue pushing for a negative-POV of Rosas in the article (inherently breaking WP:NPOV). The question: Will the arbitrators keep an eye on any further important developments in the JM Rosas article (mainly an FA review)?
- Lecen's contributions have been accused of exhibiting content excessively favorable to the Empire of Brazil. What is the appropriate noticeboard that would devote greater attention to this matter? Can I discuss these matters with other users in Misplaced Pages without fear of being accused of canvassing? What would be the optimal way to approach this matter (aside from talking to Lecen, which is practically impossible) in a non-confrontational manner?
- Who is the man that would risk his neck for his brother man?
Thanks in advance for the answers. Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | 02:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- 1. I'm not sure what you are talking about, so it was probably a coincidence, yes.
2. There's no real formal methodology; it's mostly a "we read the content, we looked at the diffs, and this is what we came up with."
3. I mostly didn't pay attention to who gave what evidence; I just read the page and evaluated the points raised on its own merits.
4. Nothing. You are theoretically at liberty to file requests for administrators to look over his behavior, but leave it to other editors to deal with it (like SandyGeorgia below apparently).
5. Because the primary concern was that you were POV-pushing, not that you were uncivil. That was at most a minor factor in my eyes.
6. See 5; they are connected to an evaluation that your editing was not in line with our neutrality policy.
7/8. Yes, bringing an article about a slightly-more-controversial topic than a beverage to featured status and having well-established independent editors evaluate the sourcing in particular would be a good start. It is unlikely that we would vacate the case entirely, but if you are able to present a strong case, we would note that the topic ban has been altered on the case page. I cannot speculate as to how likely this would be to succeed.
- 1. I'm not sure what you are talking about, so it was probably a coincidence, yes.
- 1. No. That is up to the community to handle. As far as we look at content matters at all, it is only for what we consider to be egrigious violations of the neutrality policy. Incidentally, I take it you are referring to File:Juan Manuel de Rosas by Descalzi oval.png?
2. WP:NPOV/N, but keep in mind that your topic ban extends to all namespaces. I would advise that you not open such discussions and only ask one or two longstanding editors whom you trust for advice before moving ahead.
3. Never seen the movie, but it looks neat. Maybe I'll watch it when I have some free time (hah!).
- 1. No. That is up to the community to handle. As far as we look at content matters at all, it is only for what we consider to be egrigious violations of the neutrality policy. Incidentally, I take it you are referring to File:Juan Manuel de Rosas by Descalzi oval.png?
- NW, yes, I was referring to that image. There was even a short discussion on this at the article's talk page not long ago (see ), where again we find Lecen making unwarranted insults ("No wonder this article sucks") when nobody had done anything that could be considered baiting. The image Lecen has included looks like a distorted version of Rosas with unnatural eyes and a strange facial formation (compare it with the others in the Wikimedia page ). My personal favorite (from the available options) is the black-and-white one (see ).
- This aside, thank you very much for the advice. I will focus on cleaning my honor as an editor. I think that Falkland Islands is a reasonably controversial article that I can bring to FA standards. Since the article's history section is partially mixed with Argentina, could I please get a minor exclusion to work on it?
- There's no such thing as free time. I do, however, believe in procrastination. ;)
- Best regards.--MarshalN20 | 06:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Popped on my watchlist
The most recent posts on your talk popped on my watchlist just as I am making a probably useless attempt to catch up on a number of issues, and I feel terribly about the Argentine history case. I know I should have found time to weigh in, regret that I simply didn't and don't have the time, and feel terribly about the amount of evidence wrt Lecen's ongoing disruptive behaviors that was not brought forward. I'm reminded that the arbs can do their job best only when editors bring forward evidence. I didn't. At least Lecen got a reminder, and hopefully that will be enough to lessen the egregious behaviors I've witnessed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Sandy, nice to see your name around again. It's a shame that you weren't able to contribute to this particular case, but hopefully I will continue to see you around the project. If Lecen's name comes up at Arbitration again, would you like me to drop you a line? NW (Talk) 04:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)