Oddexit
Welcome edit
|
Request for Arbitration edit
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Editor COI/NPOV problems with BLP Debito Arudou and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks,Arudoudebito (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Debito Arudou edit
Two different editors disagree with you about whether or not that info is WP:UNDUE. Please discuss it on the talk page rather than edit warring to preserve your preferred version. 02:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
November 2011 edit
Your recent editing history at Debito Arudou shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Debito Arudou edit
See WP:CREDENTIAL and WP:HONORIFICS re use of "Dr.", "Sir", etc. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly. "Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before (or after) the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name. Verifiable facts about how the person attained such titles should be included in the article text instead. In cases where the person is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title (whether earned or not), it may be included as described above. Post-nominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name in the first line (although they may occasionally be used in articles where the person with the degree is not the subject, to clarify their qualifications)." Debito Arudou is not known as "Dr. Debito" or "Dr. Arudou". He only received his doctorate this year. Oddexit (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Request for Arbitration declined edit
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Feel free to see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.
For the Arbitration Committee, → Call me Hahc21 16:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Debito Arudou discretionary sanctions edit
Hello Oddexit. This is just to let you know that Debito Arudou, an article you have recently edited, is under discretionary sanctions. I've included some boilerplate text about what discretionary sanctions are below. Let me know if you have any questions about it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Request edit
Hi. I noticed this edit in which you accuse me of having a "conflict of interest". Could you please outline for me where you think this conflict of interest lies? Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. Quoting from WP:INVOLVED: "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest (emphasis added) in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics (emphasis added), regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." I think it would be fair to say that you have -- rightly or wrongly -- very strong personal and political feelings about the The Daily Mail and The Sun based on your comments, language, and responses regarding these sources in multiple venues as well as your participation in a debate against multiple editors of the Nick Griffin page. Evidently, this is not the first time that such a situation resulted in conflict with other editors who disagree strongly with your interpretation of the policy. In situations like this, editing the page, or solely acting as a disinterested admin of the page in which you implement outside WP:CONSENSUS on an article, isn't against Wikipedia's policy on admins of course (it's either one or the other), but simultaneously engaging in both is problematic per WP:INVOLVED. Oddexit (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- I thought this might be the case. You need to read further into WP:INVOLVED though; "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, ... is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary." I certainly do not regard myself as having any conflict of interest in this case, and I would ask you to note that I consider your repeated insults here and at AN/I to be demeaning, for you more than for me. You may feel free to confuse WP:COI and WP:INVOLVED, or to carry a partial understanding of the latter; your level of understanding is your own affair and will no doubt grow over time. When you make statements about other editors' motivations and "strong personal and political feelings" you cross a line. That line is described at WP:NPA. Please do be more careful in your future comments regarding sensitive issues. --John (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's unfortunate that you've adopted a very aggressive stance to the Wikipedia community when there is fundamental disagreement over the interpretation of policy. Indeed, to insist that you have no strong personal and political feelings about the sources when you specifically and repeated refer to The Daily Mail and The Sun as "dreadful shit," "trash," "disgusting," "vile drivel," etc only compounds the depth of the problem. These are not my words, of course. Unfortunately, they are yours. An editor without strong personal or political feelings about these sources would have adopted a more disinterested and respectful tone to the Community when engaging in dialogue. It's also unfortunate that you're quick to threaten people whenever they disagree with you. I noticed that unfortunate behavior, too. Oddexit (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- I note your failure to understand what you have done wrong and your passive aggressive issuing of further insults to compound those I have highlighted with you. This was an opportunity for you to apologise and move on, but I note you have not taken the opportunity. Having scanned your recent contributions I see you like to get involved in the political dimension of Wikipedia and perhaps it is this that leads you to see others in the same way. I regard this conversation as now being over; I will leave you with this thought. Our policy WP:BLP is designed to ensure that we protect the rights of living people. It is about as far from the sort of politicking that you appear to enjoy as it is possible to get. It is more concerned with ethics. It is not necessary to have any political motive to wish to avoid using the very poorest of sources to back up negative material on a living person, and your failure to see this says far more about you than it ever could about me. If you are unable to comprehend this difference it is likely that you will continue to put your foot in your mouth as you have here. I wish you every success in your future career at Wikipedia and I wish you personal growth and learning. --John (talk) 06:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- "I regard this conversation as now being over"...thank you for stopping by and offering your controversial views. I continue to see nothing wrong with using political op-eds as reliable sources on themselves per WP:BIASED. As was pointed out to you multiple times to no avail, context matters. Perhaps this is the reason why so many Wikipedia editors disagreed with your controversial opinion when determining if People Magazine was a reliable source for a BLP.[1]. In any case, I wish you well in your aggressive political campaign to re-write Wikipedia policies. Until that day arrives, however, you're not standing on the solid policy ground you often assume you're on. Take care, Oddexit (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- I note your failure to understand what you have done wrong and your passive aggressive issuing of further insults to compound those I have highlighted with you. This was an opportunity for you to apologise and move on, but I note you have not taken the opportunity. Having scanned your recent contributions I see you like to get involved in the political dimension of Wikipedia and perhaps it is this that leads you to see others in the same way. I regard this conversation as now being over; I will leave you with this thought. Our policy WP:BLP is designed to ensure that we protect the rights of living people. It is about as far from the sort of politicking that you appear to enjoy as it is possible to get. It is more concerned with ethics. It is not necessary to have any political motive to wish to avoid using the very poorest of sources to back up negative material on a living person, and your failure to see this says far more about you than it ever could about me. If you are unable to comprehend this difference it is likely that you will continue to put your foot in your mouth as you have here. I wish you every success in your future career at Wikipedia and I wish you personal growth and learning. --John (talk) 06:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's unfortunate that you've adopted a very aggressive stance to the Wikipedia community when there is fundamental disagreement over the interpretation of policy. Indeed, to insist that you have no strong personal and political feelings about the sources when you specifically and repeated refer to The Daily Mail and The Sun as "dreadful shit," "trash," "disgusting," "vile drivel," etc only compounds the depth of the problem. These are not my words, of course. Unfortunately, they are yours. An editor without strong personal or political feelings about these sources would have adopted a more disinterested and respectful tone to the Community when engaging in dialogue. It's also unfortunate that you're quick to threaten people whenever they disagree with you. I noticed that unfortunate behavior, too. Oddexit (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- I thought this might be the case. You need to read further into WP:INVOLVED though; "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, ... is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary." I certainly do not regard myself as having any conflict of interest in this case, and I would ask you to note that I consider your repeated insults here and at AN/I to be demeaning, for you more than for me. You may feel free to confuse WP:COI and WP:INVOLVED, or to carry a partial understanding of the latter; your level of understanding is your own affair and will no doubt grow over time. When you make statements about other editors' motivations and "strong personal and political feelings" you cross a line. That line is described at WP:NPA. Please do be more careful in your future comments regarding sensitive issues. --John (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Your latest edit to Debito Arudou edit
Hello Oddexit. I've just noticed that you made this edit to the Debito Arudou page today. This is not in line with Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, which says that biographies of living people must be written "responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone". Although "Japanese-sounding" was written by Arudou himself, using it out of context and without inline attribution makes it sound belittling, as if Arudou somehow made a mistake when converting his name from English to Japanese. And it is pretty clear that Arudou didn't intend his words to be used in this way, because he has said so right on the talk page.
If this was a one-off, I would probably let it go at that. But I see that there have been several similar edits by you to the Arudou page, e.g. [2] and [3]. We have had several problems on Wikipedia where editors have tried to undermine the reputation of living people by systematically posting negative information about them on their biographies, and because of this the rules are strict. As I mentioned above, the Arbitration Committee has authorised individual administrators to sanction editors who "do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies". Future edits like this to the Arudou page will result in a page ban, or possibly even a block. If you have any questions about any of this, I'll be happy to answer them. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions notification - CAM edit
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Referring specifically to the G. Edward Griffin article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Topic banned edit
I have had concerns about your involvement with Debito-Arudou-related topics for some time, as you know from my past warnings and messages on Talk:Debito Arudou. Up to now, I had thought that sanctions might not be necessary. However, with your recent post to Arudou Debito's user talk page,[4] you have made it abundantly clear that you are in a personal dispute with Arudou. If this was a dispute with any other editor, then an interaction ban would probably be the answer; however, when the editor you are in a dispute with also happens to be the subject of the biography you are most interested in editing, it is a different story. This is in addition to your recent post on the article talk page displaying WP:IDHT problems, and your reply to VQuakr that I think indicates a battleground mentality. While you say you are only interested in improving Arudou's article, I think that your actions speak louder than your words. I no longer think that you are capable of editing the Debito Arudou article neutrally or interacting with Arudou without fighting with him, so under the authority vested in administrators by the Arbitration Committee, I am topic banning you indefinitely from pages related to Debito Arudou, broadly construed. This ban is subject to the usual exceptions, and will be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2015#Editing of Biographies of Living Persons. You may appeal the ban by following the process outlined here. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 18:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- I contnue to be amazed at the lengths the gatekeepers of the page go to protect our dear doctor. Truly amazing. 110.132.141.159 (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)