|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
- Appealing user
- Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction being appealed
- Roscelese blocked for two weeks per AE report
- Administrator imposing the sanction
- Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Notification of that administrator
- [1]
Statement by Roscelese
Once again, the reason for the block is false on its face - I very much did defend and argue for my conduct. As I said at AE, I discussed the reverts with the users who had made the edits I was reverting, sometimes even getting an explicit statement of agreement. The restriction was put in place to prevent edit-warring and reverting without discussion, not to prevent the reversion of drive-by destructive edits - which, when I reverted, I still explained fully in the edit summary. In fact, Newyorkbrad has specifically stated in the past, a propos of my restriction, that a talkpage thread which merely duplicates the contents of an edit summary should not be necessary.
Moreover, the filing was pretty obviously bad-faith to begin with (Slugger falsely claimed that I wasn't discussing reverts on article talk which I did in fact discuss, and had never edited any of those articles before). My conduct was compliant with WP policy and with my own editing restrictions, and AE is not a block dispenser for winning what other users, oddly, seem to be seeing as personal battles rather than collaborative encyclopedia-building.
In light of the fact that this is not the first time that Sandstein is blocking me on the supposed basis that I did not say things that I in fact did say, and of Sandstein's clear misinterpretation of the restriction, I'm pinging the admins involved in creating the restriction and the discussion that led to it. @DeltaQuad: @Salvio giuliano: @Courcelles: @Euryalus: @AGK: @Seraphimblade: @Doug Weller: @Guerillero: @Callanecc: @Bishonen: @Newyorkbrad: @Thryduulf:
–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Sandstein
I recommend that the appeal is declined. I refer colleagues to the reasons for which I imposed the block in the thread above. Sandstein 17:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (involved editor 1)
Statement by (involved editor 2)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Roscelese
Result of the appeal by Roscelese
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
(Copied from Rosceleses' user talk) I've taken a look in detail at the four edits brought up in the AE report. The restriction specifies that Roscelese must discuss any content reversions on the talk page, with the exceptions of blatant BLP violations or vandalism. So, the question at hand is whether the reverts were discussed on the talk page, and if not, whether the edits reverted were blatant BLP violations or vandalism. (It would of course also matter whether the articles edited fall under the scope of the restriction, but Roscelese has not disputed that they do and they all seem clearly to be within it.) *The first edit in the AE report was an edit to The Silent Scream: [2] on 24 April 2019. This edit was not followed by a discussion on the talk page, as Roscelese's last edit to Talk:The Silent Scream was on 11 November 2017. Roscelese's edit summary was "rv - neutral language". This is clearly a content-based rationale, so this was a content revert and required discussion. This edit violated the restriction. *The second edit was to LGBT rights opposition on 23 April 2019: [3]. The last edit to Talk:LGBT rights opposition was on 27 December 2017, so Roscelese did not follow up this edit with a discussion on the talk page. The rationale for the revert by Roscelese was "Even if it is decided to mention the "ex-gay" movement in this article, this promo is not the way to do it". That is clearly a content-based rationale, so this would require a talk page discussion. This edit violated the restriction. *The third revert was to Homosexuality and religion on 18 April 2019: [4]. The last edit to Talk:Homosexuality and religion was on 3 March 2019, so Roscelese did not follow this edit up with a talk page discussion. The rationale for the revert was "Rv - increases reliance on interpretation of primary sources, does not add any new information, just jargon". This is clearly a content-based rationale, so this edit violated the restriction. The fourth edit was to Abortion and mental health on 11 April 2019: [5]. *The last edit to Talk:Abortion and mental health was on 21 January 2019, so Roscelese did not follow the revert with a talk page discussion. The rationale for the revert is "These claims are not in the NEJM article". That is clearly a content-based rationale, so this edit violated the restriction. Roscelese's restriction requires that content-based reverts are to be followed up with a rationale and discussion on the article talk page, not somewhere else, so discussing it on a user talk page or a different article's talk page is not sufficient as the discussion on the article talk page is intended to involve anyone interested, not just the particular user who made the edit. These four edits were content-based reverts (even if judged only by Roscelese's own rationales for them) and all of them lack followup on the talk page, so they were correctly found to be violations. I would therefore decline the appeal and find the block to be valid. That you find the discussion to be "pointless" does not change the requirement to start it nonetheless. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- (I was pinged about this) I would uphold the block per Seraphimblade's reasoning, above. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- After looking this over, I concur with Seraphimblade's reasoning. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I was also pinged and I also concur with Seraphimblade. Thryduulf (talk) 10:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not pinged. If the issue was purely related to the first two diffs (we use "anti-abortion", not "pro-life", and the second one's just promotional, even if it doesn't rise to vandalism) I might think a two-week block was a little harsh, but the second two diffs are fairly obvious. So, I concur. Black Kite (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I share Black Kite's assessment of the first two diffs. I also think that the fourth diff, viewed in its context, is quite defensible: it reverts a previously reverted deceptive IP addition using a bogus doi, and the IP restoring that edit just expanded that doi into a reference citing AGF. The only reasonable inference is that the second IP has neither actually looked at the linked reference nor even the previous IP's edit summary (which claims to rely on a 2017 review when that reference is from 2006). Even when viewed in the most charitable light, this is grossly irresponsible source misuse that would earn the user a topic ban from the area. I do agree with Seraphimblade's assessment of the third diff, though it was a week old at the time of the report. Taken together, I find the two-week block to be on the harsh side and would have preferred a lesser sanction. That said, I cannot say that the sanction actually imposed is outside admin discretion, and I therefore agree with my colleagues that this appeal should be declined. T. Canens (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
|
