User talk:Petrarchan47

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

AE

The case involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Petrarchan47 has been reopened. Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Is it only open for Admins to comment? @Galobtter: petrarchan47คุก 21:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Well it is all a bit out-of-process, but I don't see any reason why you would be barred from commenting as normal Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Petrarchan47: I suggest you don't respond to the request. It's clear from policy that Drmies had no authority to reopen it. You should ask him to revert. If he won't, have his admin status removed. 173.239.230.41 (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Side note: IP is a proxy, now blocked for a year. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, @Galobtter: for your response. I pinged you again in case you could shed any light on the above IP comment. Is it accurate regarding procedure? petrarchan47คุก 21:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Drmies chose not to address his behavior which suggests he believes his friends will protect him. But his violation of ADMINACCT and DS are clear from this case in 2015 where the Committee unanimously agreed "once a request has been dismissed by an uninvolved administrator, it may not be reopened." Admins are rarely disciplined at AN or ANI so if he won't revert willingly your best path is to open an arbitration case. 173.239.230.50 (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I supposed that will only be possible if I'm not site banned. I guess anyone else can take up the case, though. This information is much appreciated. petrarchan47คุก 01:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

You're not going to be site-banned, at least not based on the evidence that I looked at. As for the IP's comments, they're full of it: it's just a troll who throws around big phrases. There is nothing wrong with reopening a thread; if one admin can close it, surely another can reopen it, especially if a third admin thinks there's something to the request. You are free to believe the IP and their blather about adminaccount and whatnot, but it's just hot air from--most likely--someone who got banned a long time ago and is just here to create discord. Note what the closing admin said: "This does not prevent you from taking action if, unlike me, you believe it is warranted". My action is to look again, more closely, and to ask for advice. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies:It's likely the closing admin wasn't aware of the arbcom case. I left a link to it in my response at AE. petrarchan47คุก 01:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe. But I think it's more likely that the case referred to editors, not admins. Either way, Sandstein has so much experience that I have trust in his knowledge even if I sometimes don't agree with his decisions. But let me point out something else to you: the purpose of DS is to improve the editing atmosphere. Sanctions are the last resort. It is in your power every single time you edit to improve that atmosphere. It is maintained, and I agree with it, that you have said things that are outside the normal bounds. Of course you will say you didn't--but you don't have to. You can say other things, and perhaps a different decision can obviate the need for sanctions. Because if this case is closed now on a technicality (which, I think, will make the closing admin think twice next time), and you keep on keeping on as you did in those four diffs from the past month, there will be a next request, and I'm going to guess it will end differently. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I hear everything you've said, and I do see that many of the quotations brought to the AE are things I would not say today. I don't think there is evidence that I have a disruptive presence on the pages. I also don't find this to be a mere technically, though. If this case finding does apply to the reopening of my AE, it's no less important than the finding about casting aspersions. @Sandstein: Sorry to bother you, Sandstein. I am wondering what your take is of the arbcom case I've linked to at AE, posted above in this thread? Perhaps I'm reading it wrong and like Drmies says, it doesn't apply here. I would appreciate your take. petrarchan47คุก 01:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• The blue wall of silence. I could reverse the close as an admin but I'm sure if I did the rule against it would suddenly become very important. I'm sorry you were treated unfairly. 199.229.249.164 (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

That is very kind of you. Thanks for speaking up. The atmosphere at this "encyclopedia" seems to discourage speaking one's truth... but playing games is all the rage. petrarchan47คุก 21:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Please take another look

Regarding your edit summary referring to me "information disappears from this encyclopedia in a heartbeat. Wow." My edits moved that information into a relevant section of the article. It's one small event in the companies history and there no way that it merits it's own section. Nothing disappeared. Please apologise for accusing me of acting in bad faith. SmartSE (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Did your edit summary include the fact that you were moving the material? I think I looked at the page just after you removed the Roundup section, but before you had reinserted the text. I have already struck my comment at the Monsanto talk page but I do apologize for the misunderstanding and assuming bad faith. If you can, next time you are moving rather than removing information make a note of that in the edit summary. petrarchan47คุก 21:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. It was one of a series of edits in quick succession so I assumed that it would be obvious to anyone looking at the history or their watchlist what I was doing. Looking at the timings it does look as if it was just a coincidence that you linked to the section here the very moment I was moving the content. SmartSE (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, SmartSE. petrarchan47คุก 23:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely banned from editing anything relating to genetically modified organisms etc., interpreted broadly and under the original case scope

You have been sanctioned further to the Arbitration Enforcement (AE) request filed on 13 September 2018

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. 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. AGK [•] 18:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Oops, I have been tending to an RfC at Monsanto and didn't see that you've taken this action. I will be appealing your decision. petrarchan47คุก 18:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand and shall overlook that edit. AGK [•] 18:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@AGK: I was shocked to see that you describe yourself as "uninvolved". Can you explain?

Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics -- uninvolved administrator

You were one of only two Arbs who wanted me topic banned at GMO ArbCom

You were in the minority amongst Arbs who thought I was "casting aspersions"

You were very active in the votes of all the final decisions. Uninvolved?? petrarchan47คุก 17:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Commenting in an admin or arb capacity does not make an admin involved so, no, AGK is not an involved admin. (That said, I do think this was a rather harsh action.) --regentspark (comment) 18:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Can you link the policy for your assertion please? I would like to familiarize myself with it in detail. Thanks. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Veritycheck: from WP:INVOLVED 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. SmartSE (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Much obliged. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Petra, this really and truly does just make me feel heartsick. I have worked alongside you or within your circle of editors for many years now. I know how hard you have worked to improve this encyclopedia even when you faced challenges to our work. Certainly the Edward Snowden article comes to mind here. Regarding this current effort to silence you, though I hesitate to use that language because it sounds so dramatic, I stand with my jaw clenched in hopes that we will not see corporate control take over the management of our articles (see my user page). Not that some of those that want to bar you from Monsanto-related articles are aware of what's at stake here - I doubt that they are aware of the bigger picture here at all. And you know, if they go through my Monsanto edits I am sure that they could find plenty of diffs to bar me as well since my feelings are very similar to yours. It was good to see you step into the Monsanto articles just where I had stepped out with disgust and fatigue. We will see what happens... It is hard to be hopeful... Gandydancer (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Gandydancer, that does sound dramatic and I wish you had hesitated a bit more; I suggest you read over the original case and its verdict on "casting aspersions". Drmies (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Go away you utter hypocrite.199.229.249.164 (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: there is another way to look at the fact that so many editors that have argued that the Monsanto articles are biased have ended up "casting aspersions" and have been banned. I held similar "aspersions" but chose to leave to work elsewhere rather than waste my time. It was good to see Petra arrive on the scene and stir things up a bit because there has been resistance to entering recent info into the articles, IMO. Hopefully we will see some improvements made by the present group of editors that are now working on updates. Gandydancer (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

You're right @Gandydancer:, you could easily be topic banned in the post-GMO ArbCom WP. Using improper sources, or misrepresenting them, does not appear to be an issue though, so have at it, if you're suddenly into that sort of thing. petrarchan47คุก 21:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Petra, I have no idea what you are talking about. I do know a few things about problematic sourcing where one source was disallowed because she wrote a critical book about GMOs while another source was promoted and used to assert that the NYT was not an acceptable source for agriculture per an editorial written by a source that had written a book that encouraged the use of GMOs. Gandydancer (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Well I'm not allowed to discuss anything regarding GMO's right now. I figured you would know what I was talking about. As far as being topic banned, I am in agreement with you that saying normal things that we have always said, is now grounds to ban an editor. It only takes one admin to decide to do it. At WP, the finding from the GMO ArbCom case about casting aspersions is taken very seriously, but another finding from an ArbCom case that disallows reopening an AE is ignored entirely. So I don't think we're playing on a level field here. petrarchan47คุก 22:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

What?? Now you are banned? This seems very strange. Can you even talk about it? Gandydancer (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: "Topic banned" not "banned". Yes a topic banned editor can't talk about the subject anywhere on wikipedia or even make reference of the subject they are banned from. Anatoliatheo (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Absurd that Petra was topic banned for casting aspersions. This place has become a haven for special interests and advocacy. Nothing neutral about it. Minor4th 01:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)