Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive189

I was topic-banned from RT News for 6 months for "disruptive edits" and I challenge this assertion

Advice given by Ricky is good. I have reviewed the content of the appeal and see no basis for overturning it. NW (Talk) 04:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was banned from both RT News and its talk page because I was supposedly creating "disruptive edits" by asking for scientific, verifiable proof that RT is a propaganda station, asking for studies or some sort of quantifiable data. Instead, I was topic-banned for "disruptive editing"; yet as anyone can see at the RT Talk page I was being very polite until one editor begun accusing me of having a fake account and of editing in poor faith. I think my topic-ban is extremely unjust, and I also call about admins to review the sources behind RT's page, as 'Daily Beast' and Tumblr have never been valid sources, and yet the admin who is attempting to lock debate on the issue of valid sources (he says that RT is "undeniably propaganda"--but that's merely opinion!) has nonetheless attempted to railroad the debate one way, in a way that makes RT look like some sort of propaganda channel, when there is no proof to this scientifically or in quantification. I ask that my 6-month topic ban be reviewed; It's truly unfair, and I received it all in an attempt to better Wikipedia and find good sources, (which reminds me another reason why Wikipedia is dying), which makes me not want to contribute very much here anymore (And I've been contributing, mostly to history-related articles, since 2012) if I'm going to be topic-banned every time I try and make a valid improvement, only to get railroaded by influential editors with admin friends. Solntsa90 (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC) This is the proper place for that but (a) please consider following the instructions above and using Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal and (b) you'd do a lot better convincing people if you didn't try to argue based on attacking the admin and arguing about how Wikipedia will collapse without you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Canada Jack

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Canada Jack

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ricky81682 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Canada Jack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Motion:_Longevity_.28August_2015.29 :

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. Editing to restore the "original edit" which I point out is wrong.
2. The discussions at Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people are largely self-explanatory. The issue is whether reliable sources should determine who should be listed on the page or some other terminology: the phrasing now is "international body that specifically deals in longevity research" but without identifying the GRG as the only actual source in play.
3. The "no one has 'verified' the age" versus newspapers alleging "reporting" the age (I don't even know anymore) arguing continues here
4. To determine which bodies are said international longevity researching specific-whatever, "We observe what news sources use" so arguing newspapers are unreliable as a source other than to parrot the GRG as a source.
5. "Nice try, Ricky. NONE of the sources outside of GRG / Guinness claim that these birthdates are "verified"... unless GRG/Guinness has verified them!" which is false.
6. "I never said they were the sole authorities, but media around the world use those two almost exclusively, so we should as well, that's all"
7. It's the oldest living people, yet Canada Jack derails the discussion by repeating arguing about the insertion of Methusalah's age knowing full well that's irrelevant, but calling it the logical consequence and the can of worms opened by the lede saying "reliable sources" alone. The section needs an outside admin to just collapse it.
8. Canada Jack has been derailing the discussion by pointing to this article in the Canada Star.[1] While never advocating for her inclusion, (a WP:NOTFORUM problem), he's repeatedly referencing it including just to make snipes on other discussions going on.
9. " This page is for verified claims. The fact a claim was published doesn't establish its veracity."
10. As noted above, there is an argument about the birthdate for Zhou Youguang (not a claim, just that little fact). The only way Canada Jack sees this is "His claim is accepted on its face by the media. But... there is no mention of Guinness and/or GRG as having verified the claim" in regards to his birthdate. As discussed before, no one cares a cent about this until Zhou turned 110 and then there's arguments everywhere that his birthdate must be removed until it's verified by the GRG or else there exists the possibility that Wikipedia is claiming that a supercentenarian exists that the GRG hasn't identified which I don't know why that matters.
11. Finally, to summarize this mentality, "Are you seriously trying to claim that it is the Toronto Star which has determined that the proof is "not solid enough" instead of Guinness? That the Toronto Star, not Guinness, bestows the crown of "world's oldest person"? C'mon, Ricky, surely you can do better than that!"

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• The talk pages each notify the editor of the discretionary sanctions.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is the typical parade of horribles and chaos caused whenever there is an ounce of push-back to even debating the language that doesn't explicitly or implicitly treat the GRG as the last word on the birth date of very old people. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

In response, I first note that if Canada Jack knew he was wrong, the proper thing is to restore the correct version, not to ignore it until called out here but it's been changed again which doesn't matter with the RFC ongoing. I note that this is again a single issue: is List of oldest living people going to continue to be a walled garden that expresses a particular WP:POV about who is allegedly the world's oldest people or not? Our sourcing policy is clear: we are to have a single WP:NPOV everywhere and a single standard for WP:RS. The analogous WP:MEDRS either believes a fact or strips it away entirely; it does not create separate articles with different sourcing standards. Canada Jack's refusal to accept that is precisely the type of antics that brought about the original longevity ARBCOM case. There is literally nothing in his arguments that hasn't been argued for over a decade. Either we should report on Zhou's birthdate as a fact on his biography, put him in the relevant category, and put him in the (all the) relevant articles (which admittedly the oldest living people is not) or we treat that fact as a WP:FRINGE theory and ignore it entirely. The amount of inane arguing over an article that literally no one supports or has even thought to include longevity claims shows the level of hysteria over any pushback that does nothing but drive away all but the most hardened of editors here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Spartaz, is it really robust debate to keep bringing up hypotheticals that you have no interest in actually putting down as a fact? I'm for debate but WP:BLUDGEON and WP:NOTFORUM are also relevant; we wouldn't want a page like "List of the best NBA players" or whatever filled up with navel gazing arguments about what "best" is and someone just throwing out argument after argument, none of which they actually want in the article. Is filling the talk page with comments like this about random alleged oldest people (facts that you yourself aren't arguing to be treated as true) in every single section (Canada Jack is arguing about the oldest guy in Israel in a section about the oldest Japanese man) disruptive itself? I don't see any indication that any of Canada Jack's questioning is actually in response to the RFC issue; rather it's repeated discussion after discussion with example after example (the same ones on oldest living people and at oldest people and elsewhere) regardless of relevancy of just "hi I found a single blog or a newspaper somewhere that said something so STUUUUPID, can't you see how there's some wrong newspapers out there". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Diff

Discussion concerning Canada Jack

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Canada Jack

My reading of the "Sanction or remedy to be enforced" is that it was determined that verified super-centenarian lists from the GRG were considered a "reliable source," and that the non-yet verified lists (Table EE from GRG) were not a "reliable source." However, what we are talking about here is not whether GRG or Table EE is or isn't a RS, it's whether news media reports on longevity claims of those over 110 years old can be used on the "oldest living people" page, if these "reliable sources" suffice to be being included with claims which have been verified by GRG etc., the particular discussion on what the lede should say. The contention here from me and others is the only a recognized authority on verifying these claims should be used in considering these claims "verified," and that news organizations, while "reliable sources," are not able to properly assess these claims, no more than a newspaper, even the New York Times, would publish, say, the latest cancer claims without consulting oncology experts who could better assess and put into context such claims. As Guinness World Records oft stated: "No single subject is more obscured by vanity, deceit, falsehood, and deliberate fraud than the extremes of human longevity," hence the need for a rigorous, more scientific approach in assessing claims. Many news organizations recognize the expertise Guinness and the GRG have on this subject as they are cited, from publications around the world, as having "verified" particular claims. I could supply literally hundreds of examples from around the world of them being cited as authorities.

In attempting to change the lede to allow "verification" from news sources, thus removing the need for sole GRG/Guinness verification, a can of worms is opened, which is what the thrust of the discussion here was. I pointed out that by their own criteria of "reliable sources," dubious claims like that of a woman in Canada who will soon turn 120, would warrant inclusion on this page, thus destroying the credibility of Wikipedia. She would be the oldest person in the world. (News sources, citing Guinness/GRG, routinely identify a woman in New York, at 116, as the world's oldest.) I was never seriously proposing to include her on the page, I was using their own criteria to point out that a highly dubious claim would be admissible, and therefore their changes would be detrimental. This approach from Ricky and others are nakedly anti-GRG, those who argue as I do are routinely painted as shills for GRG, a tone I personally find perplexing - it's as if the approach here is to "get back" at GRG, for some undefined reason.

In sum: There should be no sanction/remedy as I have not engaged in discussion on the subjects for which a sanction/remedy is warranted. And, therefore, discussions on whether non-GRG sources should be considered for inclusion is a topic for which there are no restrictions.

As for his DIFFs...

1 was a good-faith edit, I reverted an edit to what I thought was the original edit as a discussion (the one I refer to) was on-going. He pointed out the error, and I made no further edit. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

2 discussions are on the subject Ricky (I believe it was him) initiated. If I am violating something for engaging in discussion, then surely Ricky, who initiated it, is too. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

3 Debating verification is not prohibited - the original decision was the one mentioned above - I'm not challenging GRG as a reliable source; I'm not arguing that GRG's Table EE is a reliable source.

4 He has made a what I consider to be an invalid line of reasoning, making a strawman argument by dismissing an argument I never made. Specifically, that if newspapers are "unreliable" as he claims I am suggesting, then how we can rely on them when they cite GRG/Guinness? But I've never argued the newspapers are "unreliable," just that they are not experts on the subject. Using his logic, if the New York Times cites a cancer expert, we can't say that that person, no matter his/her credentials, is an "expert" as the New York Times is not expert in the subject. I don't buy that line of reasoning, and that was not what I was saying. And, I never suggested we can only verify if cited by a paper, just that newspapers routinely cite GRG/Guinness, therefore they are considered (by media outlets around the world) to be experts on the subject. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

5 He says it is "false" that media outlets don't say a claim is "verified" without quoting GRG/Guinness. But he's never supplied an example of a claim being called "verified" without a mention of GRG/Guinness. I don't think he understood the point I was making. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

6 The quote simply states the obvious - they are considered by media world-wide as experts, so should we. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

7 As I pointed out repeatedly to Ricky, the section in question asked "Who is the world's oldest ever person?" I simply applied the "reliable source" argument - which is at the heart of the discussion here - to that case. It was a Reductio ad absurdum argument directly related to the "verification" and "reliable sources" issues. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

8 Again, as I earlier pointed out that, given the very criteria Ricky and others are proposing, this woman - Canadian Emma Laurent - would appear on this page even though she is three years older than who Guinness recognizes as the world's oldest. The point was to underline the consequences of the actions proposed - destroying the credibility of the page. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

9 Again, this is not debating what was resolved and for which there is sanction for discussing - that GRG is a reliable source; that GRG's Table EE is not a reliable source.

10 Ricky misrepresents the discussion at hand. The point was not whether Zhou was verified or not by GRG, the point was the only difference between the Laurent case and the Zhou case in terms of "verified" by "reliable sources" is that Zhou's article doesn't mention GRG/Guinness while Laurent's does - in saying Guinness doesn't accept the claim. He insists that this mere mention disqualifies Laurent for inclusion on the page and that the "non-mention" of GRG/Guinness in Zhou means it warrants inclusion. That makes no sense, as if Zhou doesn't appear on the Guinness/GRG lists, then they've not verified him either - so Ricky and others are employing a double-standard. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

11 Ricky made numerous false statements on the Laurent article (that Canada copied Haiti's verification of the case - there is no mention of that in the article; that Canada issued a passport on the strength of Haiti's information - there is nothing in the article which says that, indeed the word "passport" doesn't even appear; that the Toronto Star believes the claims is "not proven" when that was the description of Guinness's evaluation of the claim). The final claim is what the quote discusses - his contention that "not proven" means the Star has determined that and, by implication (given the out-of-context quote he used) The Star awards the crown of "world's oldest person," an obvious absurdity. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source. Canada Jack (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Canadian Paul

I'm a little concerned with individuals being brought to Arbitration Enforcement simply because they disagree with the way longevity articles should be handled. As noted below, only one of the diffs is actually an edit to the article and thus I do not see Canada Jack engaging the type of contentious, single-agenda editing that these sanctions were enacted to prevent (and I agree fully that there is so much of it that it easy to get frustrated/be sensitive about it). I understand Canada Jack's reasoning (even if I don't agree with it) and I don't see it as disrupting the project because the article itself is not being affected by it and if he can accept his views as not being the consensus, then that will be all there is to it. Bringing dissenting voices to AE (see also the failed AE request for Lugnuts) only serves to transform an already contentious topic into more of a WP:BATTLEGROUND than it already is. Canadian Paul 18:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Canada Jack

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• Robustly defending your position on an article talk page is not disruptive unless the user is refusing to be bound by the eventual consensus or disruptively edit warring to advance their position. I'm really not seeing enough disruption in Canada Jack's edits to merit any action unless there is a clear indication that they will behave disruptively in future. @Canada Jack: please can you put these concerns to rest by confirming that you will respect the consensus that emerges on verifiability and that you will not take part in further edit wars? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)