Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:41, 27 July 2014

Archives

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 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24

Arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic ban from gun control for six months from the date and time of my signature below.

You have been sanctioned per this AE request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Given you have already filed it, you're granted an exemption to edit the WP:AE#Sue Rangell section only in order to properly file this enforcement request as well as replies and comments in that section only. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

GSL

Sorry, I've been off taking care of my real world issues, but I need guidance. I noticed the sanctions mentioned above, and it is concerning, although, I'm unaware of the whole story. Regardless, I need to ask for help. Where do you think the article needs to go from here? I've found multiple citations regarding the connection between GSL and FOPA. I have some ideas on starting a FOPA section, but I'm debating on whether or not to just use the "legislation" section for these citations. I don't know who else to talk to, as it would "seem" that the only other editors on this page do not seem interested in adding to this page, in terms of efficacy, or to the discussion (talk page). So far, they have only chimed in to criticize attempts to add citations, or to eliminate sections, rather than improving GSL. Whatever the case, please stay in touch, because you are one of the few people here that seems to put WP:POV aside in the effort to improve GSL. Darknipples (talk) 06:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, DN, but I cannot help you. StarryGrandma was my mentor, and she is The Best. You might ask if she will mentor you, or if she will recommend a mentor. Good luck! Lightbreather (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

You made me smile a lot by your suggestion for the presentation of arb decisions. Imgine they had to find diffs for sanctions in the infoboxes case ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

about the discussion at COI

Here is some feedback. Please feel free to delete this if you don't like it. I meant what I wrote at WT:COI. I reviewed a bunch of your history and interactions. Plenty of kind folks have you tried to help you see you what you have been doing wrong; you have not heard them (WP:IDHT). Blocks and topic bans are meant to be educational wake-up calls - to help you see that you made a bunch of choices that amounted to a pattern of bad behavior. Those choices are what brought the WP:Boomerang on you when you brought the Arbcom case. For what it is worth, I suggest that you stop thinking about what others have done wrong for a bit, and figure out your own editing behavior. If you go to any drama board (and especially Arbcom!) and your nose is not clean, you are in danger of boomerang. And if you go to yet another one now, fresh under a topic ban, the boomerang can get worse - a topic ban can become a site ban. So please. Stay off the drama boards. Figure out what you did wrong, and figure out how to change. When you have, maybe acknowledge that on your Talk page -- show that the block did its job, and that you now "get it". And establish a new pattern of behavior. When you do that, you probably won't need the drama boards anymore. Anyway, good luck. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I hear you; please hear me. I'm not out to punish anyone, or to prove something from the past. I just want to nip two things in the bud: future personal attacks and harassment. There's that old saying, which I'm paraphrasing here: The trick to making a lie believed is to keep repeating it. I think admin TParis gets that when it comes to the tolerance here on WP for repeated personal attacks (allegations of advocacy or COI) w/out evidence. (I am not saying that TP thinks I haven't brought some grief on myself, but I think he does get this one thing.)

Personal attacks and harassment are policies, and should be easy enough to shut down. If others do not provide evidence that someone is an advocate, paid or otherwise, despite repeated requests, and if they are not banned or blocked for repeating the accusations, and if Misplaced Pages is not enforcing the PA and harassment policies, then two options (not all, just two) are 1. See if one can get certified or verified or whatever the process is called as not a paid advocate. 2. See if one can get the PA and harassment policies, which must be core to the civility pillar, to be given the same weight as NPOV policy. (Considering that WP is at least 85% men, and the boldness that often accompanies anonymity, this place seems to me like Lord of the Flies a lot of the time.)

Finally, I wish people would not call the notice boards "drama" boards. It makes them, and the editors who take them seriously, sound petty. However, FWIW, I do appreciate your taking time to reply. Lightbreather (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

you are welcome. Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

oh! and what i did wrong, according to the clerk who closed the case, was edit war. i agree, and i will abide by my tban. Lightbreather (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

that is not accurate. you really don't get it. i hope you eventually do. Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Lightbreather - I do get that one bit, but I think Jytdog gets it too after watching my own stuggles. Lightbreather, you have to keep in mind though, and I've talked to you about this before, the way you approach some folks is a bit IDHT. Personal attacks by others aside, you really should make more of an effort to understand your opponents before replying to them. Sue isn't a terrible person, she's actually quite smart. You two could have a lot to share - both being female editors in a male dominated project. Perhaps some kind of a restart could be in order? Perhaps you two could find a non-political article to work on together.--v/r - TP 01:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

TP, you are a good guy. Perhaps I will reach out to her in that way. But that doesn't change the point I'm trying to make here: Personal attacks and harassment need to be nipped in the bud. I've been reading a lot today about the old "Wikiquette" board (that term is hard to take seriously) and WP:PAIN, and what they were meant to do (especially the latter), IMO, is in need of rebirth. I am not a terrible person, and I am actually quite smart. I cannot tell you how many times I've thought of giving up, but I like to edit, and WP needs good editors, and good female editors, and civility (from the average woman's POV) on this project is abysmal. So I hang in there, hope I will be forgiven my sins, and appreciated for my strengths. Lightbreather (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Centering

I believe you can center the text by just wrapping it between html "<center>" and "</center>". Anastrophe (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much

I take it as a great compliment that you would copy some of the userboxes from my page and put them on your userpage. As I wrote at WT:COI, this will not immunize you from accusations of paid editing, in fact it will invite them if you don't live up to your commitment. But it is a good step in making the commitment. The hard part comes now in living up to the commitment. I'll just give one piece of advice on this - think before you edit! I have every confidence that you will be able to live up to the commitment.

I also want to thank you for putting up the "Defy Censorship" photo. But I also want to warn you that it is a very powerful and controversial message that it sends. This is a replica of the Goddess of Democracy statue that was the centerpiece of the Tianamen Square protest for democracy and freedom of speech in China and the massacre of the protesters that followed. There are no good numbers on how many people were killed defending the statue or the ideas behind it, but it is certainly in the thousands. The replica was created by sculptor Thomas Marsh based on all the photos and film that was taken at the time. Copies of the replica are in museums and at universities throughout the world, and are used by the US government as an award for achievement in protecting human rights. The statue shown here was approved by congress and is displayed in Washington, DC near Union Station. I believe Marsh's "original" is in San Francisco about 10 blocks from the WMF headquarters.

The statue is controversial on Misplaced Pages, and especially on Commons, because several people have gone to great lengths to try delete it, and have deleted many similar photos. One argument was that the original artists in China can't be contacted and thus cannot give up their copyright permission! (This sophistry was easily disposed of) Another argument was that the replica was an original work of art and we'd need to get the permission of Marsh to display it here. When Marsh's OTRS permission was obtained, one of the same editors argued that the OTRS form was not filled out correctly! I've had to fight hard to get this photo onto Commons and Misplaced Pages, and i think it is the best single thing I've done on Misplaced Pages. So you can see why I'm especially proud to see it on your user page. Of course I would understand if, now that you know the story behind it, you didn't want to have such a powerful and controversial symbol there. I feel that it also represents a commitment. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Now I am that much happier to share the image. I am a journalist and believe in the free exchange of ideas. Lightbreather (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

PAIN

I read the exchange at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Where_and_how_to_request_a_Civility_board and since you are pausing to absorb the almost overwhelming material, let me see if I can push it over the edge :) I'm mentioning this only because it is in progress.

See User_talk:Sphilbrick#User_Prosfilaes for background, and imagine what we would do if we had a reinstitution of WP:PAIN and this incident were brought to the board.

I can see two strong arguments:

It isn't a personal attack to point out that someone is introducing a falsehood. After all, we have a template, indicating the accidents with over 50 fatalities should be in italics, and an editor removed the italics from an accident involving over 50 fatalities. The template was true before the edit, false afterward, so any reasonable person should agree that the editor introduced a falsehood. A sanction is needed.

A counterargument:

The editor was not just accused of introducing a falsehood, but lying. The accusation of lying means that the editor had to know they were deliberately introducing false material. In fact, a discussion about the removal of the italics was in progress, with sentiment leading toward the removal, so the removal of italics was in furtherance of an improvement to the encyclopedia, endorsed by a consensus.

While it is tempting to play Potter Stewart (I know it when I see it) I suggest that reasonable people can differ on whether the edits constituted a personal attack. I think they were, but I can appreciate that others might not, and therefore might find the edits complaining about personal attacks as a personal attack themselves.

So what should we do? One downside of a sanction board is that it is so much more public. People often do not want to climb down form positions, and that goes in spades when done so in public. I am hoping, perhaps naively, that my involvement in this incident, without the glare of ANI, will reach a solution. It may not, but I strongly doubt that dumping it into a sanction board where editors are itching to use sanctions tools would be a better choice.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Sphilbrick. First, let me say that I appreciate that you are an admin and I am not, and so you have experienced Misplaced Pages from at least one angle that I have not. I have read your post and the link you gave a couple of times now. Without claiming to understand this specific problem as well as you, I will reply first to the evidence that W. gave:

• 13:25, 20 July 2014 , edit summary "don't deliberately introduce falsehoods into Misplaced Pages; some of those had more then 50 dead, and thus according to the template as you edited it, they should be in italics"

Editing policy says, "Try to use an appropriate edit summary." The Edit summary information page says:

Avoid inappropriate summaries. Editors should explain their edits, but not be overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause tension or bad feelings, making collaboration more difficult. Explain what you changed, and cite the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but try not to target or to single out others in a way that may come across as an attack or an insult.

So Edit summary links to the Civility and No personal attacks policies. It also warns against "revtalk". Therefore, the "don't" clause in P's edit summary is without a doubt (IMO) a personal attack. If that had been left off, and if the "as you edited it" had been left out of the balance, it would have been a perfectly civil summary. He could have simply added "See talk page" if he wanted to discuss it further. However, this one PA is no reason to ban or block someone, so I would look at the next diff.

• 13:26, 20 July 2014 , new section, "Don't add lies to this page."

The "you" is implied in this new section heading. It is contrary to the WP:TALKNEW guideline and to the NPA policy re: WP:AVOIDYOU and WP:WIAPA. Calling someone a liar is a serious accusation, and the statement that went into this new section provides no evidence of lying. This is a second PA.

• 13:35, 20 July 2014

Another inappropriate, avoidyou, revtalk edit summary: a third PA.

• 13:36, 20 July 2014 isn't nice, but it's not an obvious PA either. It suggests that the article is misrepresenting facts, rather than saying, "You are a liar." As for P's comment, "I don't care what any WikiProject says," it's confrontational, but if the issue he's objecting to is misrepresenting information to the reader, then the Consensus policy applies. Consensus is not a vote. (In this case, 2-to-1.) Consensus says: Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. That puts W. on notice, despite a little consensus that was reached separately, to address P's legitimate concern.
• 11:56, 24 July 2014 and 12:02, 24 July 2014 confirm what the other diffs show: that, at least in this dispute, P. has made repeated personal attacks, and W. has (without my seeing other evidence) not addressed P's legitimate concern.

So if I were the "decider" in this case: If P. had never been formally warned about PA in the past, I would warn her/him. If P. had been warned before, or banned or blocked before, I would ban/block her/him, for incrementally longer periods, similar to 3RR. Also, if there was no evidence that W. had tried to address P's legitimate concern, I would warn him/her, too, about consensus (not being a vote).

Or in other words... Lightbreather (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

In other words, re: the argument "It isn't a personal attack to point out that someone is introducing a falsehood" is oversimplified. Did W's edit change the meaning of the template data? Yes. Did the edit originate with W? No. (It originated with M.) Regardless of who it originated with, did W. know the edit changed the meaning of the template data? It's unclear, but nonetheless, P. accused W. - in an edit summary - of deliberately changing it. That is a personal attack. P. should've just written "please see talk page" and taken his concern there. If he had done that, you might not have the dispute before you now, and there wouldn't be summaries floating around in the edit-summasphere casting doubt on W's trustworthiness. Lightbreather (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Gender gap invitation

We invite you to join Gender Gap task force. There you can coordinate with users who are trying to identify gender bias on Misplaced Pages (including gender bias in articles, in editor interactions, policies and implementation of policies) and take steps to counter it. If you would like to get involved, just visit the Gender Gap task force. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or other members of the task force. Happy editing, SlimVirgin 02:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)