User talk:Tornado chaser/Archive June 2017

Discretionary sanctions notification

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, 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 that 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.

I'm a bit concerned by some of your edits at National Vaccine Information Center. Some are definitely positives (such as removing a bit of non-neutral language calling a book "propoganda"), but others remove sourced information or downplay the degree to which the NVIC's views are fringe. Please note that neutrality does not mean giving all views equal consideration. Fringe beliefs are not provided equal footing with the mainstream scientific view, and in particular, it's appropriate to clearly label anti-vaccination opinions as demonstrably false. Please be careful with your editing in this topic area. As noted above, pseudoscience is under discretionary sanctions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

First off, I don't understand discretionary sanctions, anyone who violates policy can be blocked, regardless of what topic they were editing, so what's different here?

Second, what sourced material did I remove? I removed a quote because it appears twice, but it's still there, just not twice, I was planning to add more mention of criticism in the lede, but the same quote twice in such a small article didn't seem useful.

Third, where do I give any validity to the bogus scientific claims of NVIC or any other anti-vaxxers?

Thanks for bringing these issues to my attention, I'm just not sure what is wrong with my edits. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for the delayed response, I did not notice your comment. In the future, you may wish to ping the person you're responding to. You can do this by typing the text {{re|BU Rob13}} (replacing my username with someone else's if you wanted to ping someone else, of course). Discretionary sanctions mean that administrators are given far more leeway in what sanctions they may implement. Usually, administrators may only block editors, nothing else. In areas with discretionary sanctions, administrators are granted broad authority to place editing restrictions other than blocks on editors (e.g. WP:1RR or a topic ban). Normally, such restrictions can only be placed through community discussion. Administrators are also quicker to act against disruptive activity. There are less warnings to be had. In one of your edits, you removed the fact that the National Vaccine Information Center was an anti-vaccination group from the lead. That is a rather charged edit; it buried the information that this group is compromised of anti-vaxxers all the way down to the Criticism section. See here. That was the main cause of my notice, although you should note that discretionary sanctions notices do not necessarily mean you did something wrong, just that you should be aware they exist. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13:Thanks, now I understand discretionary sanctions, I agree I made a mistake with my edit to the lead, another user reverted it and I have not reverted them, i am planning to make some changes to the lead but i wanted to know what you thought was wrong with my edits. I am going to do something like:

"The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is a U.S based nonprofit advocacy group.[1][2] While NVIC says that they do not "advocate for or against the use of vaccines"[3] they are considered an anti-vaccine group.[4][5][6][7][8] NVIC was founded in 1982 by parents who blamed the DPT vaccine for the illness or death of a child[9] and describes itself as the "oldest and largest consumer led organization advocating for the institution of vaccine safety and informed consent protections".[10]""

Inappropriate "warning"

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Heroin123 please. There is no "edit war" involved. Morty C-137 (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI - A Check User has confirmed that this was a sockpuppet of a known vandal. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• Please explain this warning, since the IP did not edit the article you allege. —C.Fred (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@C.Fred:I issued this warning because the IP did vandalize the article, an edit filter blocked it so it won't show up in the article history. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I see it now. It wouldn't hurt to mention that in the warning, especially since the IP doesn't know (or can't see) the filter log. —C.Fred (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@C.Fred: I meant to I just clicked save prematurely, thanks for pointing this out I wouldn't have realized my error otherwise. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Donovan_(runner)

I made edits to this page because there were completely untrue statements made on it. The only disruptive editing was clearly made by some clown in the past few days. Richard Donovan did not organise the South Pole Marathon through any company he owns. He didn't organize it at all. There was also a section called 'litigation' suddenly inserted in the past few days, alleging that he had gained 'noteriety' for litigation in running circles. This section is entirely false with regard to allegations about a Galway City Marathon and its cancellation. Is it not blatantly obvious that somebody came onto this page in the past few days and manipulated it to write a maliciously unbalanced and untrue piece?...with a focus on a single event in ireland that's the subject of a court case, but not for the reasons cited at all? There was even a section on 'UltraRunning ireland alleging that people couldn't be selected for Ireland without being members of UltraRunning Ireland and various other false statements regarding some kind of conflict of interests with commercial races. What on earth is this about? It's entirely invented - please read the third party links currently placed, especially including the article from Athletics Ireland, which make it obvious those statements were untrue. Really, this is infuriating, that Wikipedia can be used in this manner to libel and defame someone. Please simply remove the page than indaequately attemmpt to monitor it and then threaten me for correcting the info with a simple, basic paragraph. Indeed, I have no idea why this page exists at all. Richard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.18.85.240 (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC) By the way, why were all the events that are actually organized by Richard Donovan left out of the basic edits? These are included as basic info in the edit that was subsequently made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.18.85.240 (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)