A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.
To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.
This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.
Please make your request in the appropriate section:
Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
---|---|---|---|
Anachronist | 16 June 2024 | 0/0/0 |
Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
---|---|---|---|
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation | none | ( orig. case) | 7 June 2024 |
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads | none | none | 4 June 2024 |
Amendment request: India-Pakistan | none | ( orig. case) | 7 June 2024 |
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions | none | none | 10 June 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Use this section to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. This page is for statements, not discussion.
|
Initiated by — Kaalakaa (talk) at 07:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Anachronist, as an admin, seems to have some chronic issues with understanding our policies and guidelines.
Please stop confusing the new users here, and if you can't speak knowledgeably on this stuff, please stop." [9]
This has nothing to do with censorship, but with WP:BURDEN" [10]. So I opened a discussion and provided him with a quote from the source, but Anachronist said, "
I am not arguing that the statement was unsourced. I am saying that for a biography, we don't need to put undue emphasis on analysis of statements of faith." [11] This reply of his, in my opinion, has no relevancy with WP:BURDEN, and displays his misunderstanding of the policy.
you seem so clearly intent on misinterpreting multiple policies in order to exclude a legitimate academic source from a contentious article on entirely spurious grounds." At the end of the section, Anachronist said, "
I'm going to sleep now. A dispute over content should be continued on the article talk page. I'll look for it tomorrow." However, Anachronist did not reply again on that article's talk page [13].
books published by university presses" are among "
the most reliable sources." Within the essay, he also describes Russ Rodgers, a command historian of the US Army and former adjunct professor of history, as a hobbyist historian.
The bee in Kaalakaa's bonnet seems to arise from objections to his reliance on a source (Rodgers) in the Muhammad article for which he is the sole proponent, as that source is the primary topic of interaction Kaalakaa has had with me. For reference:
Iskandar323, DeCausa, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, and Admiral90 participated. Kaalakaa is the only editor promoting that source. The other points brought up appear to be WP:COATRACK grasping, and I won't waste my time addressing them, what happened happened, others are welcome to comment for better or worse. Otherwise, I'll add that the essay at WP:UPRESS, which seems also to irritate Kaalakaa who falsely claims it cites no reliable sources, is based on citations to two such sources, as well as the community discussions above, for which he also refuses to accept the arguments given.
I freely admit that I was inconsistent in my understanding of AE decisions. We live and learn. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 01:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
it's questionable that this assistant professor is even a notable scholar per WP:NPROFas if WP:N had anything to do with WP:RS, and than doubles down by describing the author as " WP:FRINGE". Per my comment on Anachronist's talk page, the author, Jürgen Schaflechner is
an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Heidelburg. He has been doing fieldwork directly related to the topic of the article for something like a decade. He is the co-editor, and a chapter contributor, to a book published by the Oxford University Press, where he analyses in detail the subject of the 'coerced conversion' topic. In summary, Schaflechner is as credible a source on a topic as Wikipedia policy could possibly expect, and about as non-fringe as could be imagined.
Ultimately Anachronist seemed to half-heartedly back down over some of these highly questionable claims, though still insisting that I had "violated AE" (see [17]). And frankly, even if that were true (I'm sure those familiar with policy will agree it isn't, after looking at the timeline, and the arguments presented), Anachronist's absurd arguments regarding the validity of a published academic - an anthropologist writing on a subject he had been researching through fieldwork for many years - as a source can only lead me to the conclusion that Anachronist is unfitted to be an admin. I cannot in good faith believe that it is acceptable for anyone in that position to be so at odds with core Wikipedia policy and yet remain in a position of trust.
From what I've read above, the issues with Anachronist don't have anything to do with their conduct as an admin. Even if we take every one of these complaints at face value, it all adds up to not understanding sourcing policy. Citing your own essay in an argument isn't a good look, but again, it's not an abuse of the admin tools. Looking at this another way, were they to be desysopped, that wouldn't affect their ability to do the things that they've been accused of doing. So I don't see why this is being framed as a request to desysop.
As I see no links to WP:AN or any other dispute resolution process, I imagine this will be declined. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 13:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Regarding RoySmith's query, the committee would have to ask the filer for their understanding, but mine would be along the lines that if someone can hold such an... adjacent (mis)understanding of some of our most fundamental policies, then can they be trusted with advanced permissions? The way things are going, I don't know. ——Serial Number 54129 13:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Is this Arbcom request filed correctly? The links for previous discussion or WP:DR went missing. Might be these following discussions between them?
Talk:Muhammad/Archive_34#Recent_revert_that_cites_WP:BURDEN or this one [18]? Have there been any discussion on WP:ANI before coming to here since ARBCOM is really the last step?-- -Lemonaka 14:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
It may be a good idea to place Wikipedia:Reliable sources (university presses) for WP:MFD. Its only (very few) uses are by Anachronist, and it appears to contradict standing norms. As to the rest of this, perhaps a WP:TROUT is warranted. But, sanctions? Having a few mistaken impressions and exiting a conversation doesn't seem to rise to the bar of sanctioning someone. Admins don't enjoy special protections above any editor here, but if this case is accepted it's guaranteed to result in Anachronist being de-adminned. The levels of off base behavior simply don't rise to that level. Anachronist has used admin privileges more than 14,000 times, or about a thousand a year since passing their RfA. If Anachronist is really that far off the rails, let's see some evidence of inappropriate or flat wrong use of admin privileges. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 15:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Aoidh: The history over time proves otherwise. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 01:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Aoidh: As I noted above, admins don't enjoy additional protections. My point is that if the case is accepted, Anachronist will be de-adminned, and that must be taken into account. Yes take cases on their own merits, but don't blindly walk into the turbine blades in the name of justice. Does this case really rise to that level or are there alternatives? 14,000 admin actions getting it right across 14 years and now we are here? There's more going on here, and admins aren't supposed to be perfect. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 12:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
For the record; every time ArbCom has accepted a party named case about an administrator over the last six years the administrator has been de-adminned. I stopped counting after 10. I guess somehow when ArbCom's batting 1.000 it's reasonable to assume Anachronist wouldn't be de-adminned if this case is accepted. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 14:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Just FYI I moved the essay back to their userspace just now, noting in the move log "per our longstanding policy of keeping extreme minority opinion essays in the userspace of the person who wrote them" Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
The issues being raised are legitimate and warrant discussion. However, and as noted by others above, there is no evidence that this matter has been previously addressed in any other forum. Absent a credible claim that Anachronist has abused the tools, this appears to be premature and I suggest the committee decline the requested case. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
"Anachronist, as an admin, seems to have some chronic issues..." Meh. Some potentially troutable interpretations of policy at most that would raise a minor ripple if this had been brought to ANI first. My experience of these two editors have been at the Muhammad article. I've seen and interacted with Anachronist there for the last decade and a half (both under current and former name). He's been a balanced, reasonable and calming influence on what can be a choppy talk page. Certainly a net positive there. Kaalakaa appeared there about 12 months ago and their voluminous edits resulted in a complete re-write of this prominent article over 2-3 months - but it's been with a discernible POV, and a dubious selection of sources. This happened less than two months after the account was created. Kaalakaa showed a high familiarity with the nuts and bolts of editing and policy for such a new account. See WP:RSN#RfC: Sources for Muhammad for more on their sourcing choices. As was pointed out in that thread there is discomfort with what Kaalaaka has pushed through, including from Anachronist. Hemiauchenia summarises it accurately here. This Arbcom request is about attacking opposition in a content dispute and the Committee should dismiss. DeCausa ( talk) 21:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't quite see why Arbitration needs to be sought here if there haven't been prior attempts at dispute resolution. There isn't some egregious abuse of administrative tools here, and this fundamentally looks to be a sourcing dispute in a particular article.
Rather than entertaining arbitration here, I would encourage the ArbCom to decline this and the parties to pursue normal content dispute resolution. This can take the form of discussions on WP:RSN regarding the reliability of particular sources, as well as formal RfCs on the article talk page if there is some article-specific content issue. But I just don't see how we need to invoke the last resort of arbitration at this point. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
Is there some reason ArbCom needs to handle this case? Are the allegations, if proven true, enough to merit a sanction? Is there enough evidence to suggest the allegations have a reasonable chance to be proven true?The latter two questions appear to have the answer as yes, considering I apply a lower standard for admins. So far the first question, even though this is an admin, seems to be a no. I will wait to see if more evidence emerges to answer that question before deciding whether to vote to accept or decline this case. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
lost the trust or confidence of the community(per WP:ADMINACCT) then the community needs to have a reasonable chance to decide if that's the case. - Aoidh ( talk) 00:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)
{{subst:
Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}}
to do this.This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.
Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
General consensus among participating Arbitrators is that nothing needs to be done at this point in time. Primefac ( talk) 20:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Initiated by HouseBlaster at 02:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement by HouseBlasterThe
Manual of Style and
Article title policy are jointly authorized contentious topics. Speaking for myself, I have It seems that others are also unaware (in the conventional sense) that article titles are CTOPICs; at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions it was about three days and 26KB of discussion before Guerrillero pointed out that article titles are already designated as a CTOP. The MOS and article titles are related, but distinct, issues. I think they should be split into seperate CTOPs to reflect the fact that they are distinct issues. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 02:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Extraordinary WritSplitting the remedy is probably more trouble than it's worth. But while we're here: there hasn't been a logged sanction under this case since 2020, and that's probably because its scope is so narrow that most title- or MOS-related disruption isn't covered. Honestly there's a strong argument for just repealing it altogether, although the timing may not be right for that. An alternative would be to expand it to include RMs and the like (certainly there have been plenty of issues there), but that would give administrators an awful lot of discretion. The status quo of having the CTOP cover just the policy/guideline pages (which are often less contentious than the RMs) doesn't really make sense to me, though, and the lack of use suggests it's not doing much of value. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC) Statement by SarekOfVulcanI would oppose splitting them, because the application of the MOS guidelines to the article titles policy was a large part of the controversy that caused me to file the case in the first place. See also Comet Hale–Bopp. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Statement by {other-editor}Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information. Article titles and capitalisation: Clerk notes
Article titles and capitalisation: Arbitrator views and discussion
|
Initiated by Just Step Sideways at 22:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Two recent situations have revealed what appears to be some vagueness regarding when and if users should email private evidence to the committee, the utility of doing so when it concerns a curent on-wiki, but non-ArbCom discussion, and also if merely saying that a thread exists is not permitted.
(I seem to recall that there is a case somewhere where the committee discussed very similar issues, but I've been unable to locate it in the archives.)
I feel like this has the potantial to create a chilling effect where users will be afraid to post anything at all on off-wiki criticism sites, no matter how innocuous their posts are the topic being discussed may be, and that even mentioning the name of a thread on such a site is now forbidden, which seems a bit extreme to me.
I understand and agree that directly posting a link on-wiki to a specific post that contains outing is a clear violation of the outing policy. It is less clear to me that posting merely the name of an extremely long thread with no actual link to the thread at all is a violation. I would therefore ask that the committee clarify where the line is.
I've deliberately not named the individuals involved in these incidents as this is matter of interpretation of policy, specifically Wikipedia:Oversight. I can email more detailed information if needed but I imagine it should be fairly easy for you all to determine what I'm referring to. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
there is never a situation that calls for linking to or discussing a Wikipediocracy thread.seems a bit extreme to me. Do I agree with everything that is said and done over there? No, but I could say the same about here. There are several ongoing threads over there that contain valid and insightful criticism of Wikipedia content and policy. I have personally taken multiple actions here that have improved the project, that I likely wouldn't have done had I not read the criticism over there. I'd tell you which ones but right now it is unclear to me if I'm even allowed to say. Dispairaiging remarks like
No need to point people to WPO to hear ten blocked trolls give their opinions on it.aren't helpful. I seem to recall you saying at some point that you have never actually read anything over there, so it's hard to understand how you formed your opinions. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Editors need to make a choice between their loyalty to Wikipedia and its editors versus their social life elsewhere.is pretty wild. You can't be critical of Wikipedia content or contributors or you're a traitor, choose a side. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I think it would be very interesting to hear ArbCom opinions on this question. In part, this issue comes up in the context of the 2024 RfA reform discussions heading in the direction of wanting accusations of wrongdoing against RfA candidates to be backed up with specific evidence, and the question comes up of how to provide specific evidence when it cannot be posted onsite. Does ArbCom want editors to submit such evidence about RfA candidates to ArbCom, and if so, can ArbCom respond to the evidence in a way that is sufficiently timely to be useful for RfA? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I have lots of thoughts, but they boil down to: we will not link to (or obliquely mention) any thread with outing/doxxing; consider whether it is accessible to the public so it can be verified; and consider whether the WP user has linked themselves to the off-wiki account. If any of the 3 tests fail, then you can't bring it up at RFA (or anywhere else at WP). Sorry, the world is imperfect. Based on this, you would very often be able to discuss a Discord discussion, and very often not be able to discuss a WO discussion, but with exceptions in both cases. It seems like further details on this aren't useful until and unless I become God Emperor of WP, and can just implement it, but I can expand if someone wants. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 23:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I see this as a matter for the community, rather than ARBCOM. To me the heart of the matter is if, and how, we can discuss Wikipedia editors' off-wiki activities. ARBCOM has a role to play when off-wiki conduct impinges on on-wiki matters enough; typically, for harassment, collusion, or other disruption of our core purpose. The off-wiki conduct that has become a matter of discussion at RFA is very different: it isn't a violation of any of our PAGs, it is just behavior some editors find objectionable in an RFA candidate. We treat the off-wiki lives of our editors as private, and rightfully so. Discord and WPO are weird, in that they are strictly off-wiki fora populated by a large number of Wikipedians in good standing. I don't think it's an unreasonable position to take that behavior there shouldn't be immune to on-wiki scrutiny if it becomes relevant to on-wiki matters; I also don't think it's unreasonable to say that what happens off-wiki should stay there until and unless our PAGs are being violated, and then it needs to go to ARBCOM. But that's an area in which current policy seems to not cover all the contingencies, and the community needs to grapple with that. I don't see how a comment like this is useful to send to ARBCOM, or what ARBCOM could do if it was; but we're clearly unsettled as a community that it was posted, and we need to figure out guidelines for it. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 01:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree that some clarification from the committee on these matters would be helpful. This isn't entirely up to them—for example, the ban on discussing Discord discussions is the result of a community RfC and it would be inappropriate to modify it either way here—but ArbCom has historically played a role in making editors feel generally uncomfortable about linking to things off-wiki. More specifically, a 2007 remedy pronouncing that quoting private correspondence is a copyright violation is still on the books and still cited in WP:EMAILPOST. Does the current committee agree with this interpretation?
In addition, ArbCom has a responsibility to regulate the oversight team, and I've had a feeling for a long time now that they been enforce an extremely broad understanding of what constitutes "outing" that is not necessarily reflective of broader community opinion. Some direction there could also be very helpful: OS is used as "tool of first resort", or so the mantra goes, but we shouldn't underestimate how chilling it is to have an edit suppressed. – Joe ( talk) 08:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
profiles on external sites, and by extension posts associated with those profiles, can reasonably be considered "personal information". For me it's the latter that is the problem here; the former is a good rule when applied to genuine personal information. Interestingly, it's also a relatively recent addition to the harassment policy, [19] [20] following this discussion in December 2020. The reason given for the addition was to bring the policy in line with the practice of oversighters, which rather speaks to my point of the OS team pushing things in a more conservative direction, not necessarily the community as a whole. – Joe ( talk) 06:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I'd like an opinion on this as well, not necessarily just for RFA. Specific to WP:Discord, I !voted in the Discord RFC to restrict copying and linking Discord messages. I did so based on my reading of OUTING, HARASSMENT, and the community expectations of IRC logs, rather than strictly what I'd prefer. That consideration included what Joe references about the copyright concern of "private" messages, which seems to be part of the long standing rationale around IRC messages. I've also seen several times people suggest that OUTING goes as far as covering someone outing themselves on another Wikimedia project (i.e. a user page on eswiki), meaning that's not good enough to mention here on English Wikipedia. Prior to SUL, that may well have been, but SUL is long done. So what I'm really driving at is: Where is the line on identifying yourself sufficiently to be mentioned on site? Particular to the Discord, we have OAuth integration through an open source bot hosted on WMF resources. Is this enough to count as self-disclosure? Or does the connection to Discord have to be on-site (i.e. a userbox or otherwise)? Revisiting the Discord RFC is on the community, but some of these questions, such as EMAILPOST and how OS will act, are at least partially under Arbcom as Joe notes. -- ferret ( talk) 13:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Regarding Ferret's comments regarding disclosures on other SUL wikis. I have a vague recollection that this was discussed previously, but I don't remember where. I don't think a single hard and fast rule can be applied to that, but it's a matter of how reasonable it is to expect en.wp editors to be aware of the disclosure. For example if you make a disclosure on another wiki and you prominently link to that page from your userpage here, that should count as disclosing it here. If you disclose something on your e.g. eswiki userpage and make it clear on your userpage here that you contribute to eswiki, then again it's reasonable to take that as having been disclosed to the English Wikipedia. However, if you state something on the e.g. Russian wikisource's equivalent of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, and don't link to that page here, then it has not been disclosed to the English Wikipedia. Obviously there will be many things in between the extremes that can only be decided on a case-by-case basis. However, unless you are sure it has been intentionally or obviously disclosed somewhere it is reasonable to expect English Wikipedia editors to be aware of, then assume it has not been disclosed. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I think the community wants to have pretty firm protections against doxxing
I'd like the committee to make an explicit distinction between persons involved in the act of doxxing (or say vote canvassing or any other misconduct) on third-party sites, and persons who participate on those sites but are not abettors. It's futile to overreach and police what editors do and say outside wikipedia. Hypothetically speaking, I can say whatever I want on any third party site with a fictitious name, without any possibility of repercussion on my activity on wikipedia. Arbcom should act exclusively on cases where they find evidence of misconduct by an editor off-wiki without attaching any vicarious liability to other participants on that off-wiki platform. —
hako9 (
talk) 19:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
@
Levivich JSS/Beebs, you posted in that same thread over there six times since that post was made, and not a single word about this very open threat.
What is JSS supposed to do? Chide Vigilant aggressively so that they stop doxxing? As if that would work? The doxxing is going to happen whether editors here participate there or not. —
hako9 (
talk) 23:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
CaptainEek Statements like there is never a situation that calls for linking to or discussing a Wikipediocracy thread
are problematic. Are you suggesting that if I were to discuss my resignation of the tools in late 2013, a Wikipediocracy post--that persists to this day in somewhat redacted form--doxxing me and listing my employer's name and phone number and my home address and phone number (that were redacted so quickly by WPO leadership I couldn't confirm their accuracy) and several other identifying bits of information would be off limits for me to bring up to discuss the circumstances of my tools resignation? I'd like to think that, as the person doxxed, it is my prerogative to mention, discuss, or even link to such a thread, and the clear sense of
WP:OUTING is that such linkage would be permitted if done by me. (For the record, none of the information is particularly threatening to me 10 1/2 years later. Those overly interested can Google my current employer and discover why.)
Jclemens (
talk) 18:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
One of the first things I did after learning about it was searching my own name on there; boy was that a bad decision.CaptainEek, you highlight one of the ongoing negatives of Wikipediocracy: regulars there have a love/hate, but mostly hate, relationship with Wikipedia administrators that can have a demoralizing effect on Wikipedia editors. While I would also not recommend any admin or outspoken user search the site for their username, once having done so, it can be instructive to see how particular actions are discussed. In at least one case, only after being pointed to Wikipediocracy and reading the relevant thread did I understand the opposition to a stance I took. So while linking to criticism of another editor may well remain off limits, each mentioned editor should be made aware of the potential to review critics' unfiltered thoughts at the site. Jclemens ( talk) 23:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
A couple of days ago on WPO, Vigilant, the WPO user who most often doxes Wikipedia editors and openly threatens to continue doing so, wrote, in response to Eek's comments here, "Sounds like Eek needs an exposé" (link omitted). JSS/Beebs, you posted in that same thread over there six times since that post was made, and not a single word about this very open threat. Here, your third post is "Dispairaiging remarks like 'No need to point people to WPO to hear ten blocked trolls give their opinions on it.' aren't helpful." That's pretty bad: you take the time to criticize someone for criticizing WPO, but you don't criticize WPO for threatening to 'expose' editors.
(Also, Beebs, give up the "but they read it!" line of argument. Of course people who criticize WPO read it. Just like people on WPO read Wikipedia even though they criticize Wikipedia. This is not the "gotcha" that you seem to think it is: if people didn't criticize things they read, or didn't read the things they criticize, there would no criticism at all. Perhaps that's what you want?)
So w/r/t JSS's comment in the OP that "this has the potential to create a chilling effect where users will be afraid to post anything at all on off-wiki criticism sites," that chilling effect is good and we want that. Just like WPO is trying to create a chilling effect on Wikipedia by threatening to dox editors they disagree with, Wikipedia should create a chilling effect, or a taboo, about participating in off-wiki websites that dox editors, even if those websites refer to themselves as "criticism sites." There are other reasons not to have a blanket prohibition on linking or referring to another website (one of those reasons is so we can call people out for their wikipediocracy hypocrisy, as I am doing here), but "chilling effect" ain't it.
Levivich (
talk) 19:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
While I think the idea of prohibiting mention of the ignominious badsites and offsites was done with the best of intentions, it seems to very obviously and directly facilitate and enable any manner of bad behavior. In general, the way it ends up working in practice is something like:
Here is another example:
Another:
Whatever the reasoning was behind this omerta stuff, it seems in practice to have almost entirely bad implications -- it certainly doesn't stop people from going to WPO and doing whatever they want (trash-talking other editors, getting out the vote for RfCs/AfDs/etc, weird mafioso larping) -- the only thing it actually stops is us talking about it or doing something about it.
Contrariwise, this isn't even much of a benefit for WPO -- people onwiki are also completely free to just say stuff with no evidence because "well I can't link to it or tell anybody what it is". jp× g 🗯️ 03:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
As the victim of doxxing (and threats of same) and nasty, uncivil, and snide criticism on the named off-wiki website by at least one admin (who should lose their tools) and a few fringe(*) editors here, the comment by @ Just Step Sideways: is very ironic. (* "Fringe" is defined as editors who get their POV from unreliable sources and edit and discuss accordingly here.) Just Step Sideways writes:
Whatever happened to the matter of far more importance to Wikipedia, and that is the chilling effect HERE created by those nasty off-wiki comments from other editors who should be considered good-faith colleagues here? How can one edit and discuss around such editors and ever feel safe again? The "enjoyment of editing" here is totally undermined by them. Trust has been violated. The chilling effect is enormous and constant, and one lives under a cloud of pressure from their illicit and bad faith stalking and harassment. I know this will immediately be reported there by traitors from here, but it needs to be said.
Editors need to be protected, and their enjoyment of editing here should not be threatened by uncollegial criticism, snide comments, and threats of doxxing elsewhere. It invites even worse behavior from bad actors who may not even be editors here. It's a dog whistle. Editors need to make a choice between their loyalty to Wikipedia and its editors versus their social life elsewhere. Keep a wall between them. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks to @ Levivich:, @ Vanamonde93:, and @ JPxG: for your insights. You seem to understand the problem. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Puzzling that Beebs would feel the need to poke a stick into a beehive. This is not an Arb matter, if anything it is a community matter, and it's really not that. Criticism websites have existed almost as long as there has been a Wikipedia and over these 15+ years, people have a pretty good implied understanding of what is in and what is out. Mentions are one thing, links maybe another. In any event, it strikes me as dumb to overgeneralize about a message board as it is to overgeneralize about Wikipedia — projecting its worst foibles as in some way representative of the whole. This is clearly a No Action sort of request, methinks, and good for that. For those of you who demonize WPO, pop over and have a beer with us sometime, we don't bite very hard. —tim /// Carrite ( talk) 23:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
We rejected this back in 2007. Could we please stop trying to sneak it back in? Mangoe ( talk) 00:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Recently an administrator in an AfD linked to WPO as an argument for their !vote in AfD. I notified the administrator who posted this link that there are personal attacks about me in the thread. The admin ignored my concern. I notified arbcom multiple times and they ignored me. I notified oversight and they ignored me. So it appears to me that we are selective in who we protect here on the project. Me, not so much, the RFA candidate? Yes. I am especially disappointed in Barkeep49 and the arbcom crew for their complete lack of attention to this issue. When it is against policy to use PAs but it is ok to link to an outside site that allows PAs we have a reason to be concerned.
The AfD was clearly canvassed at WPO and editors came to Wikipedia en-masse to ignore our guidelines and policies so they could remove the article. That canvassing is a separate issue but certainly tied to the same issue. Listen it is creepy having this anti-wikipedia site linked to us like a sister project. It is even creepier that some admins are enthusiastic supporters and participants at WPO. Lightburst ( talk) 15:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
"possibly under their real name"happens will matter a huge amount. If there's not a real name, I'm not aware of practice/procedure to suggestion action against (as with scenario 1). If there is a real name that has not been revealed under policy, it would seem to be eligible for oversighting. Are you suggesting that WPO be exempt from Oversighting in this scenario? And I don't understand what you're suggesting is the real impact of scenario 3. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Its not that you're forbidden from discussing the nonsense at WPO, but its not recommended and can in fact be avoided. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
we will not link to (or obliquely mention) any thread with outing/doxxing; consider whether it is accessible to the public so it can be verified; and consider whether the WP user has linked themselves to the off-wiki account. If any of the 3 tests fail, then you can't bring it up at RFA. However, I do agree with Joe and others that the Committee has some role to play, though I would prefer to share that role with the broader Oversight team. With OS, I find that 98% or so of the OS requests are clear yes or clear no under policy and require little thought on my part to action. It's the remaining 2% where the OS team should work to have consistency (I think ArbCom should set the expectation that there be less variation in OS response than in other admin areas, including CU). In the noticeboard example that JSS gives, this fell in that 2% which is why I consulted with someone else before taking action. Beyond this, there has been a lot of discussion about WPO of which I have a number of opinions about but is also not a unique use case when it comes to mentioning/linking to off-wiki threads/discussions which I see as the matter before us and thus doesn't need any special analysis beyond what I've written above. Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Initiated by Jéské Couriano at 16:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Over the past month or so we've been having members of the Indian Armed Forces either editing or attempting to create articles concerning military regiments in India. It's only recently come to light that this is a concerted effort by the Indian Army itself; practically all accounts involved have failed to disclose their connexions and very few have used their talk pages (and those that do tend to describe it as an order from higher up that they don't really have a choice but to obey). I'm not as concerned about the drafts, as they're G5-eligible. What I am concerned about are the pages already in mainspace that have been targeted by this campaign, such as 1889 Missile Regiment (India) and a host of others; see User:Jéské Couriano/2024 Indian Military Regiment Spam for a more complete list. I'm seeking to have the 500/30 rule apply specifically in the Indian military regiments topic area to stymie editing of this sort and to force these editors to the talk pages of the articles to make their case.
It seems like page protection is already available in the standard set of CTOP restrictions, and the Committee has confirmed in the past that 30/500 is included in that. Protecting such a large number of articles might be slightly stretching the intended limits of what a single administrator can do, but since page restrictions may be imposed to minimize disruption in a contentious topic
rather than disruption on a single page, it seems like it would be valid. Unless the Committee disagrees with my interpretation, I'd be willing to temporarily ECP the necessary pages.
The Wordsmith
Talk to me 17:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
there's no realistic way to predict which specific article the newest sock, either registered or IP, is going to editmeans that short of applying ECP to most or all of the articles in this topic area (which isn't reasonable) WP:ARBECR doesn't seem like it would address the issue. It would, however, create more barriers to other editors who would like to edit those articles. - Aoidh ( talk) 21:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Initiated by EggRoll97 at 03:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Multiple pages protected under contentious topics procedures this year alone (see
WP:AEL#Armenia-Azerbaijan_(CT/A-A) for just a sample) have been protected under arbitration enforcement but have no editnotice or other restriction notice applied to the page. This is despite a line recurring in contentious topics procedures pages being, in part, When a page has active page restrictions, the following template must be used as an editnotice
, and the
contentious topics procedures page itself stating that an editnotice is required prior to blocking an editor for a violation, even if they are aware of contentious topics procedures, with the language of However, breaches of a page restriction may result in a block or editor restriction only if: The editor was aware that they were editing in a contentious topic, and The restricted page displayed an editnotice ({{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} or a derived topic-specific template) specifying the page restriction.
Because of this, I ask for clarification as to whether these editnotices can be added to pages by any editor if the enforcing administrator has not done so, or whether they may only be added by the administrator who has applied the page restriction.
The edit notice can be added by editors with the page mover permission. Idk whether the idea of CT was to do away with this requirement but I don't think it did so in my usual area (AI/IP), the Arbpia edit notice (and talk page notice which can be added by any editor) is needed in general. Selfstudier ( talk) 08:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Editnotices can be created by administrators, page movers, and template editors. If an editnotice exists, most editors can edit it, and I'd support non-admins rectifying clerical errors wherever possible. Speaking of which, if someone wants to collect some pages that need editnotices, I'm happy to cross a bunch of them off the list.
Arbs, I'd suggest that common practice has moved away from such editnotices being necessary. Between admins forgetting, banner blindness, and mobile editors not seeing them at all, I don't think the notices are meaningful in generating awareness of the restriction. Enforcement of restrictions these days tends to be dependent on both formal CTOP awareness and a request to self-revert being ignored or declined, meaning a few other checks are in place to avoid unwarranted sanctions. Would the committee consider changing this requirement to a recommendation? Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 18:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
An administrator who imposes a page restriction (other than page protection) must add an editnotice to restricted pages using the standard template ({{ Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} or a derived topic-specific template), and should generally add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.(formatting removed). Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
{{Contentious topics/editnotice|XYZ}}
as an edit notice to pages clearly fully related to XYZ
would be helpful, even if no protection has happened yet.{{Contentious topics/editnotice|...|section=yes}}
as an edit notice to pages related to XYZ
closely enough to justify an existing CTOP page protection would also be helpful.{{Contentious topics/editnotice|blp}}
to BLPs, as being in
Category:Living people already causes {{
BLP editnotice}} to appear.
~ ToBeFree (
talk) 23:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)![]() | This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment. |
![]() | Important information Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{ Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
Sentaso is indefinitely topic banned from WP:BLPs, broadly construed, and is given a final warning to avoid incivility. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 10:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Sentaso
Editor had edited Nick McKenzie to insert material which RfC determined should not be in the article. Upon being advised by myself of consensus (as determined by RfC close) and what they could do if disagree with the close, editor has sought to misinterpret WP policy and engaged in casting WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:ABF. Editor appears to be a WP:SPA who is editing to WP:RGW. TarnishedPath talk 14:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Sentaso, I have moved your comment to your section. Please write any comments you have in your section of the notice. TarnishedPath talk 09:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning SentasoStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Sentaso2. @ TarnishedPath: JML1148 in their own words stated "numerical majority against removing the content" and then claimed there was consensus to remove the content. - Yes, yourself and others related to this appear to be Australian as per your Wikipedia profiles. Mckenzie is Australian, and there's seems to be a commonality of those in favor of removing content related him are also Australian. Certainly potential for Conflict_of_interest 3. Evidence was in point 2 above re JML1148 comment. 4. I didn't reinsert anything, I don't know why you're making things up that WP history shows to be false. I added to the discussion highlighting it had been prematurely closed. I've also asked who/when the discussion was deemed over and with what authority, which you didn't answer. If yourself and associates had followed WP best practice there would clear sections on the page detailing why the page would be archived. The page has been blasted with text claiming the discussion is closed, but there appears to be no grounds for closure. I've asked you several times if you could source why this page was archived, which you've ignored, likely because you cannot. 5. As per comments on their Talk page (which he keeps removing) it appears TarnishedPath does not understand some aspects of WP:BLP. A quote of yours from the Mckenzie archive "if McKenzie is not named, then what is the material doing on a WP:BLP about McKenzie? TarnishedPathtalk 00:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)" BLPs do not always need to explicitly mention the subject's name as long as the information can be clearly and unambiguously attributed to the subject 6. Duplicate content, see my point 2 above. 7. You don't understand BLP, one should be grateful I highlighted your misunderstanding on your talk page 8. Duplicate content
Regarding comments below, these references to talk pages are a red herring. The real issue is why the Mckenzie discussion page was archived, the sham RFC and why BLP is not being followed correctly for the Mckenzie page. Tarnished Path falsely suggested that BLP need to name the person which is incorrect. I did him a favor by raising this issue on his talk page and he gets aggressive and removes the content. Why not focus on the main issues instead of the number of edits a user has? Unhelpful Sentaso ( talk) 13:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Sentaso
|
JDiala is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. Doug Weller talk 10:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning JDiala
User has a pattern of edit warring, incivility and NotForum violations, including but not limited to:
Issue is generally apparent on topics regarding I/P, with at least one occurrence in topics regarding Judaism. This is my first AE filing, so apologies for any errors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:JDiala&diff=prev&oldid=1227053862
Discussion concerning JDialaStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by JDiala
Update 06/05/24: In response to The Wordsmith's comment regarding recent diffs, I will say that while my tone was not the best, I think each case ultimately reflected a desire to cooperate and contribute meaningfully. I was not being uncivil for the sake of being uncivil. In this case it is true that I made an uncalled for comparison between closing an RfC and Israeli settlements. But the actual motivation here is to cooperate and accept that the community decided my RfC (and my closure) were not good and started a new one. In this case, I will concede that my tone was poor. The claim "[other] states like China and Russia, while awful, are significantly richer and more interesting societies" could be perceived as bigoted towards Israelis, and I should have worded it better in retrospect. I apologize to those offended. However, if one can get past the initial gut reaction that my comment was ridiculous, there was a legitimate underlying motivation. Other editors were questioning why other countries did not have war crimes in their leads, but Israel does. I responded with what I considered a policy-based reason for this: that WP:RS for Israel tends to disproportionately focus on war crimes (narrower focus), whereas for some other states (Russia, China) the RS discuss things more broadly ("richer"). That said, I will be more mindful of tone in the future if given a second chance. Note: to stay within the 500-word limit after the update, I significantly shortened the points I wrote earlier. JDiala ( talk) 19:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by Rajoub570After posting a message on the admin noticeboard regarding this issue, I saw that there is already a discussion here. So reposting it here (shortened): The Israeli–Palestinian conflict, what is known here as ARBPIA, is a very sensitive issue. My personal opinion, as someone that the conflict also concerns his personal life (I am Palestinian :)) One should deal with the issue carefully. I would like to raise the issue of one editor - @ JDiala's behavior that, as I see it, not only harm's Wikipedia's objectivity, but also harms the chance of a peaceful life in our area. Here are some examples:
I saw that editors have been asking them to moderate their language many times before. [ link - 2014], [ link - 2015], [ link - January 2024], [ link - February 2024]. The editor even received a week-long ban in December for violating 1RR. [ link] As a Palestinian, whose life is affected daily by the conflict, with my criticisms of Israel, I find this behavior problematic for Wikipedia. We have to stay objective. I think JDiala should be asked not to deal at all with a topic that clearly arouses their anger. Their edits hurt the project, and ultimately the Palestinians as well. Please don't add fuel to the fire. Rajoub570 ( talk) 15:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by Sean.hoylandI think both FortunateSons and JDiala are assets for ARBPIA. Very different kinds of assets with very different tones. This conversation shows how hard it is to build bridges and find common ground in ARBPIA. It would be good if JDiala could find a way to live with and adapt to what they regard as tone policing in the topic area. It's unfortunate that, in my view anyway, ARBCOM constraints accidentally create a selection pressure that give a fitness advantage to quiet, nearly invisible, highly motivated sockpuppets over noisy editors like JDiala. Regarding "X do not go out to murder Y because they are Y", quotes from award winning Israeli journalists like Amira Hass are normally acceptable on Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland ( talk) 03:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC) Regarding The Kip's objection to the (evidence-free) labeling of someone as a suspected sockpuppet, this seems all well and good, and is consistent with AGF etc., but for me, it's another example of the fitness asymmetry between sockpuppets and noisy, undiplomatic editors like JDiala. Editors can't cast sock-related aspersions at AE, but undetected/unreported ban evading sockpuppets can make statements at AE. And as history shows, in the WP:PIA topic area, AE attracts socks. This seems problematic and difficult to solve. Sean.hoyland ( talk) 06:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC) I wonder what the views would be here if JDiala had never posted any personal views to a talk page and only made content edits. Is the issue what an editor believes or what an editor says in discussions? If it is the latter, couldn't there be a PIA remedy between a warning and a topic ban that formally promotes WP:TALKPOV from a guideline to a policy for an editor as a step before a topic ban. That kind of WP:TALKPOV-as-policy remedy is effectively already enforced for non-EC editors posting to PIA talk pages. Comments that are just personal opinions about the real world have a near-zero survival rate. Sean.hoyland ( talk) 18:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by kashmiriWhile certainly not raising to the level of an immediate block, the continuous low-lewel disruption by JDiala, evidenced above, has been annoying enough to many editors, including to me, that a temporary TBAN feels like an appropriate response. — kashmīrī TALK 17:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by ZanaharyVery BATTLEGROUND-y in a way that is disruptive. I'd support a TBAN. On the user page quote: though I find the quote disgusting, and my interpretation of its presence on the user page is, to say the least, not positive, I don't believe in trying to interpret editors' views when it comes to making decisions about how to treat them, nor in sanctioning editors for their apparent views—I think sanctions should only be practical, and I think everyone has the right to whatever expressions and whatever impressions they desire (out of article-space). But I understand I'm in a serious minority there (right?). Anyways, that's all irrelevant. This user is disruptive and clearly doesn't edit with the care and spirit of collaboration that this topic area demands. Zanahary ( talk) 23:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Coffee CrumbsFor the record, I'm at least slightly involved now as I have expressed dislike of JDiala's tone during the current RFC. As Kashmiri notes, it's not vandalism or one big blowup, but tiny bits of pecking away. The RFC close was absolutely atrocious; rather than see an unusually sparsely attended RFC on what is normally a well-attended topic, JDiala took it upon themself to close their own RFC in favor of their own proposal in an extremely contentious area. Between the quotes that ended up at ANI and the constant pushing of the singular subject as far as civility and stretching WP:NPOV like taffy, JDiala's a net negative in this area. Justifying their extreme one-sided behavior towards Israel by saying that there are "other states like China and Russia, while awful, are significantly richer and more interesting societies" and then comparing the idea of having a proper RFC to Israel's response when settlers' war crimes are alleged, is just more gasoline on the fire. Real WP:BATTLEGROUND stuff here. CoffeeCrumbs ( talk) 00:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by BilledMammal
BilledMammal ( talk) 01:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by The KipI've had little to no direct interactions with the user in question prior to today - I believe the closest I've come was voting to overturn the questionable RfC closure on account of it being a self-close in a CTOP. Upon interacting with their talk page (in a notice to move their comments in other users' sections above), I personally don't believe dismissing RSes as wholly unreliable due to being "sourced from Israel," nor referring to above complainants as "opponents," is indicative of one who will contribute constructively and cooperatively in the area over the long term; there certainly seems to be a considerable WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset at play. The Kip ( contribs) 05:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Red Rock CanyonI am not involved in this case, but I saw this user's edits on the Leo Frank talk page. [22] is a lie, since even the line in the lead had another source right before the CNN one. It is not credible that they somehow missed it. And this [23] is worse. I see that this editor was already warned for these comments, but I think the warning is insufficient. They should not be allowed to edit any article that has anything to do with Jews. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 11:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by SelfstudierI have had a couple of differences with this editor but over content only. Should really dial the rhetoric back a couple of notches or a sanction is a foregone conclusion. Selfstudier ( talk) 17:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by LonghornsgThese additional diffs from a few days ago leave a lot to be desired on WP:NOTFORUM and WP:CIVILITY. Longhornsg ( talk) 03:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by MakeandtossI have dealt with JDiala and they were very open to discussion on the talk page. Over the past few months I have personally witnessed firsthand how quick they improved their behavior as soon as they were notified about a guideline or policy that they had not been aware about. I think it is a learning experience for them and so far they have shown no disruptive behavior of the sort that requires anything beyond a notification or a warning. Makeandtoss ( talk) 11:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by ScottishFinnishRadishJust noting that I'm staying out of this since some of the recent stuff deals with their response to my close of the close review at AN and their behavior on my talk page. Although I don't see myself as INVOLVED since it looks like there's some engagement from other uninvolved admins it's probably best to let them handle it. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by ABHammadI believe the diffs presented above demonstrate a pattern of deeply inflammatory, battleground behavior in this topic area that unfortunately, wouldn't be solved by just a temporary topic ban. The recurring use of problematic language over the past decade, throughout the past few months and even in this very discussion, suggests the need for a reset, focusing on positive contributions elsewhere. I believe this would improve the current state of this topic area, which, at the moment, suffers from significant battleground behavior and neutrality issues. ABHammad ( talk) 07:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by ArkonCan the admins maybe stop dragging their feet and do something here? It's almost enabling at this point. Arkon ( talk) 17:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by UnbanditoI felt that I should point out that JDiala has made significant, enduring contributions on the mainspace, particularly at Israel-Hamas war, that have made the article better as a whole. Their edits on that page remain 93% un-reverted. Whatever other issues exist with their conduct, I don't think it could be said that JDiala is here only to argue, or use Wikipedia as a battleground or forum. They are clearly invested in the project, and perhaps some leniency is justified on those grounds. Unbandito ( talk) 01:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Result concerning JDiala
|
Skitash and Stephan rostie are reminded to follow 1RR, to bring up possible violations at the editor's talk page to allow for self-reversion, to self-revert when in violation, and generally not to edit war. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 11:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Skitash
Skitash reverted me at two different times in the same contentious topic article at two different unrelated sections, one in the lead and the other in another section. After his first revert i added a new content in unrelated section in the same article but he reverted me for the second time. After each of them i opened a talk section regarding his reverts, he didn’t reply in the to the first talk section about his own revert despite mentioning him, in the second talks section about his second revert i notified him about his 1RR violation following his second revert where he replied but seemingly ignored what i said about the 1RR violation.
Discussion concerning SkitashStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Skitash@ ScottishFinnishRadish I didn't realize initially that I had violated the rule, and I also seem to have overlooked the part in Stephan rostie's message that mentioned a potential WP:1RR violation. I could self-revert if that solves the issue, but I'm uncertain whether this is necessary, considering that this edit dispute took place over 48 hours ago. Could you please clarify if the rule still applies in this case? Skitash ( talk) 19:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by SelfstudierSkitash seemingly not aware so posted notice. OK, so not officially aware and no opportunity on users talk for self revert, so free pass this time. Complainant, ensure awareness and allow for self revert before filing future complaints. Selfstudier ( talk) 17:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by BilledMammalNote that both parties violated WP:1RR here. Stephan rostie violated it with:
Skitash is already documented. BilledMammal ( talk) 18:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Skitash
|
Pofka's indefinite TBAN is narrowed to articles and edits about the Holocaust in Lithuania, broadly construed. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 14:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial 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).
Statement by PofkaHello, I was topic banned from Lithuania in early January 2024 (see:
HERE) due to my expressed opinion in a discussion (see:
HERE) in which I stated that
the Holocaust in Lithuania was executed by Nazis (who
occupied Lithuania) and Lithuanian Nazi collaborators, but not by the State of
Lithuania, which at the time was occupied by Nazis. The request to sanction me (see:
HERE) did not include any of mine changes in English Wikipedia's articles, so I was sanctioned purely for expressing my opinion there, but not for
POV pushing in any articles. Moreover, I was never before sanctioned for Holocaust-related changes in articles/discussions and as far as I remember I was not even reported for that during over 13 years of participation in Wikipedia before this. I was previously sanctioned quite long time ago for wrongly describing other editors mass removal of content from articles as "vandalism" (and reverting it) and for personal attacks against a user with whom I did not agree in topics not related with the Holocaust (I still have active interaction ban with that user, which I did not violate). For contributing exceptionally high-quality content to the English Wikipedia about Lithuania (see examples:
HERE) I was
recognized in 2022 as one of only two best editors in "Lithuania" topic (see:
HERE, the other identically recognized editor is sysop Renata3). Over 6 months had already passed after this sanction was applied to me and I did not violate it. However, my aim in English Wikipedia always was to contribute high-quality content about Lithuania and with this broadly construed sanction active I simply cannot contribute anything to English Wikipedia in a field where I have exceptional knowledge of information and sources (due to my extensive capability to research
Lithuanian language sources, etc.), so for me this sanction is equal to a total block in English Wikipedia and I believe that it is too strict given all the circumstances. Sadly, with this broadly construed sanction in Lithuania's topic active I plan to quit Wikipedia completely. Consequently, I appeal this sanction and request to reconsider it and to allow me to again contribute exceptionally high-quality content about Lithuania. I would like to stress that I never had plans to POV push malicious content about the Holocaust in Lithuania and I fully condemn horrific crimes which were committed against Jewish people in Lithuania (including those that were committed by Lithuanian nationality representatives). If Barkeep49 and other participants of this request procedure think that I am not trustworthy enough to edit articles related with the Holocaust in Lithuania, I request to at least narrow this broadly construed sanction to "anything related with the Holocaust in Lithuania" because per report this imposed sanction is not associated with other Lithuania-related topics (e.g. Lithuanian sports, culture, etc.). -- Pofka ( talk) 12:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by Barkeep49Just noting that this sanction was placed by me, acting on behalf of ArbCom acting as its own AE. As such I think it can be appealed and considered as any other AE placed topic ban would be. A major factor here was what had occurred after a previous topic ban was lifted. Beyond that while I'm happy to answer questions, I'll leave it to uninvolved administrators to consider the appeal. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by PofkaStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MKW100Pofka used contribute nearly endless HIGH QUALITY EDITS in the Lithuania topic and was OFFICIALLY RECOCGNIZED as a FINEST EDITOR in this topic. Banning him from the same is a contradiction. Since 99% of his overall edits happened to be in the Lithuania topic, of course this is the topic where any type of conflict could appear at all. Banning him from his topic of expertise equals like a global perma ban to him. Obviously, this punishment is way too harsh, and his finest editor status was not considered in the first discussion. ( see) In this almost automatic process, nobody defended pofka's position in the first discussion. I hope we can get a different result this time. MKW100 ( talk) 19:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)Result of the appeal by Pofka
|
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.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
Violated 1RR at:
mind 1RR in the ARBPIA topic area, and remedy any violations as soon as possible when they are pointed out
pass judgementwhen you removed the requests to self-revert? BilledMammal ( talk) 16:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
manually reverse other editors' actionsby (among other things) removing clarification that the Gaza Health Ministry is controlled by Hamas (
Hamas-run Gazan Health Ministry→
Gazan Health Ministry,
Hamas Health Ministry→
Health Ministry)
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.
The edits billedmammal linked are not reversions, they are merely edits made to the articles. He even went scrolling back two weeks into my edit history to bring up old and already resolved actions. If you look at my edit history you will see I'm clearly not engaged in edit warring on any of the articles he linked.
Ultimately I think everybody's time would be better served by making actual contributions to Wikipedia, instead of wasting everybody's time with petty punitive arbitration. When BilledMammal brought up the reversions I'd made at Tel al-Sultan massacre, e.g., it contributed nothing to the project and instead resulted in me being forced to move the article back to the wrong title in the middle of a move discussion, creating havoc in the talk page for everyone involved, when instead we could have just moved on and continued to do useful things for the project. Dylanvt ( talk) 14:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Putin's government passed law X [ref1], and Editor B goes in many edits later and changes it to
The Russian government passed law X [ref1]... That's really considered a revert? Because that's what the above edit was. Dylanvt ( talk) 19:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
there's a pretty significant difference between the two, same as attributing something to Putin rather than Russia, or Biden rather than the USNo there's very much not a significant difference. Hamas is a political party. Putin and Biden are leaders of political parties. Even if you think that difference is significant, I can just give an even more comparable example:
According to the United Russia-run government media officebeing changed to
According to the Russian government media office. There's no way it can be argued that that change is a "revert". If it were, then every edit would be a revert. Dylanvt ( talk) 20:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Posting up here because I suppose I'm involved - I initially restored the edit which Dylanvt is now accused of edit-warring over at Genocide of Indigenous peoples. I don't think any admin did advise them to self-revert; if BilledMammal is referring to my comments on the edit war I said that I was ignoring it and had started an RFC instead but I didn't tell anyone to do anything; the page was then full-protected by PhilKnight.
In looking for that warning I went to Dylanvt's talk page and reviewed this warning and discussion, which was regarding the edits listed above on Tel al-Sultan massacre, in which BilledMammal and ScottishFinnishRadish demanded that Dylanvt self-revert a page move which was a 1RR violation. It is accurate to say that Dylanvt refused, but that also grossly oversimplifies the situation: Dylanvt had good reason to refuse, as there was an ongoing discussion about the move and at least one other editor ( Vanilla Wizard) objected to reverting because of the ongoing discussion. As Dylanvt tried to explain, a separate move review had directed that the article be kept at that title pending the result of the ongoing discussion, and had Dylanvt reverted their move someone else would just have to move it back per WP:TITLECHANGES. Eventually, after more IDHT and bullying from BM and SFR, Dylanvt did revert their move, which as predicted created a technical mess which had to be reverted again by a different administrator, who cited the exact rationale Dylanvt had been trying to explain the whole time. It was all a bureaucratic waste of everyone's time because two experienced editors care more about enforcing one particular rule because "it's teh rulez" rather than use some discretion and common sense (we have WP:IAR for a reason).
I see that trend repeating in the report here. BilledMammal has gone out of their way to classify these edits as "reverts" when, as Dylanvt also has tried to explain, they are edits in the course of constructing a rapidly developing article being edited by many editors at the same time, and happen to have changed information added by someone else previously. By that overly-broad definition, nearly every edit to these articles since their creation is a revert; of course they are not, this is just the normal editorial process. The 1RR rule is meant to limit disruption; these edits were decidedly not disruptive. The rule is certainly not meant to be a "gotcha!" rule whereby any two edits that look superficially similar can be used to eject an editor from a topic, nor is it meant to be used as a tool for harassment as seems to be happening here.
The edit war on Genocide of Indigenous peoples was actually a revert war (in that case Dylanvt was intentionally undoing a previous edit, as was I) but that situation was dealt with. We can waste more time bureaucratically arguing over whether or not the highlighted edits to the other pages are reverts to the extent that the policy is violated (they aren't) or we could skip all that and simply acknowledge that no disruption has occurred. In fact the situation would be greatly improved overall if BilledMammal were sanctioned against anything to do with 1RR enforcement in this topic. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 15:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
A, B, and C.and in a separate section,
D, E, and F.. Editor X changes the first bit to
A., editor Y reverts, editor X restores their version, then both editors leave the section saying
A.and move to the talk page to discuss. Then later the same day, editor Q changes the second part to
D.and editor Y reverts. Editor Y has reverted twice in the same day, though each is unrelated to the other. Now is editor Y in violation of 1RR? Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 18:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
A.and have discussed their compromise on the talk page, run a quick straw poll in which 100 editors support the compromise (it's the fastest and most well attended straw poll in the history of Wikipedia), and following an experienced and respected neutral observer closing the discussion as obvious consensus for the edit, editor Y implements the compromise; this all happens within 22 hours. For how long should editor Y, the monster, be blocked for this flagrant violation of the letter of 1RR? Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 18:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I know content is not the thing here but this nonsense with the GHM needs to be resolved once for all. Afaik, across various discussions at articles and at noticeboards, it has been resolved and the consensus is that the GHM is reliable and editors that persist in adding "Hamas run" in front of that are only intending to provoke/cast doubt on that assessment, attribution to GHM is all that is needed, nothing more. So on the behavioral front, while in general it would be better to ignore the provocation and start a talk page discussion, I do sympathize with removing the unnecessary. Selfstudier ( talk) 17:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Administrators wishing to dismiss an enforcement request should act cautiously and be especially mindful that their actions do not give the impression that they are second-guessing the Arbitration Committee or obstructing the enforcement of their decisions.The Arbitration Committee placed the topic area under blanket 1RR. Arbitration enforcement isn't the place to say, "sure, it's a 1RR breach but it's not very bad so meh." The threshold for not sanctioning a violation is
the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that exceptional circumstances are present, which would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate.The said I haven't taken the time to review these specific allegations of a violation, although I'll try to get to that soon as to avoid another multi-week clusterfuck. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The fact that I think the actual definition of a revert is stupid has no bearing on both those edits actually being reverts. I do, however, know that there is a great deal of confusion about this whole situation about what qualifies as a revert. (And I acknowledge that I may actually have this wrong, that's how screwy things are with this whole definition of revert), that is why I suggested a gentleman's agreement back in (I think) December to request a self-revert on user talk pages, and to revert your own reported 1RR violations. Better safe than sorry, it's easy to make mistakes on fast moving articles, and it can be confusing. Unfortunately the BATTLEGROUND tendencies make this difficult because it's normally someone on "the other side" requesting a revert and how dare they! ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
A, B, and C. Editor X changes it to just
A. Editor Y reverts to
A, B, and C. Editor X reverts to
Awith the edit summary
C isn't true. Editor Y then changes it to
A and Bwith the edit summary
okay, we'll leave out C, but restoring B which no one disagrees with. All this happens within the space of a day. Has Y violated 1RR, and if she technically has, would other admins feel the need to do anything about it? Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
critics often argue that bright-line rules are overly simplistic and can lead to harsh and unjust results. And here the "bright-line" rule is illusory in any event; the current discussion on your talkpage reflects several ways in which our definition of "revert" remains ambiguous even after 20-plus years.
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.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
Well isn't this ironic.
Violated 1RR at:
2024 Nuseirat rescue operation
Nuseirat refugee camp massacre
KronosAlight also has a history of making incendiary, belligerent, aspersive, and off-topic comments on talk pages.
here.
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.
None of these are 'reverts'. I removed your editorialising and filled out citation data in existing citations, and added new ones.
Editing an existing page, clarifying what the sources cited actually say, is not a revert and there is therefore nothing to answer for here.
You can avoid this problem in future by better complying with NPOV and related Wikipedia rules on editorialisation, bias, and editing wars.
By way of example, in the Al-Sardi school attack article, the complainant initially used the infobox: civilian attack, has repeatedly sought to editorialise it and similar articles, nor did their version include even one mention of the IDF's official statements in which they claimed to have identified at least 9 terrorists killed in the strike. One needn't take them at their word - their claims should be couched as just that, a claim, that cannot be independently verified. But to omit any mention of this? And to seek to revert edits clarifying that the Gaza Health Ministry are Hamas-run (without removing any of their claims) and make requests that articles about strikes be renamed as "massacres", suggests that this is simply a vexatious complaint by a user engaged in a political campaign with Wikipedia's neutrality the victim.
Wikipedia is not a place for you to wage political wars, it's a neutral space for information.
To be honest I wasn’t familiar with the 1RR before this complaint, I don’t usually edit articles about recent events. The policy seems a bit odd to me, just seems to let trolls off the hook, but yeah, I obviously didn’t comply with that rule. I’m happy to own that and ensure going forwards that my edits respect it. KronosAlight ( talk) 14:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Kronos, going to the talk page. If an editor is routinely engaged in POV pushing and source distortion then that becomes a behavioral issue that can be addressed here, but it doesn't justify violating 1RR - and violating 1RR to address such issues can simply mean that you are sanctioned, rather than the editor engaging in POV pushing and source distortion.
I strongly encourage you to self-revert your violations now. BilledMammal ( talk) 14:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
The 1R here is a slamdunk so no comment on that, the little BM/Kronos tete a tete above looks like a resolution. However I will just note that we are once again dealing with this GHM nonsense just as in the other complaint. I am convinced these edits are simply intended to provoke and kudos to complainant for refusing to be provoked this time. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
"None of these are 'reverts'. I removed your editorialising"- which is effectively saying "I reverted your edit, but it doesn't count as a revert because I was reverting something which I think is wrong") are merely supporting evidence of this. Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
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.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
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.
i am aware of this, and have nothing to say. ltb d l ( talk) 08:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
This sort of conduct in a heated and contentious area is highly unproductive and should be appropriately sanctioned. FortunateSons ( talk) 08:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm concerned that this was an out of the blue uncivil action. If we had been debating or had a long interaction history and they made this claim, well that could just be frustration or opinion built up over time. However, when an account that per the interaction analyzer, I've never interacted with, starts throwing out comments like that, it makes me wonder why they needed a clean start and if granting it was appropriate. Certainly the replies here suggest they don't see an issue with the actions. I think some sort of action should be taken (warning, block, etc) so if this uncivil behavior continues other editors can see the behavior is part of a pattern. Springee ( talk) 11:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Because I participated in the RfC where the comments were made, I'm going to write here rather than in the section for uninvolved admins below.
This is an extremely clear case of a personal attack directed at an editor, and the behavior that taunts the personally attacked editor is... bizarre.
I agree with SFR that this is unacceptable, but I'd only recommend a TBAN if there is some broader issue than this one incident, and I'm just not seeing those diffs here. If this is merely a personal attack/casting aspersions against Springee, perhaps a one-way I-ban or a block would be better than a TBAN. (If there were an apology, an acknowledgement that what they did was grossly out of line with WP:CIVIL, and they struck the personal attacks, I might even just recommend a logged warning for civility in the two topic areas. But I just don't see any remorse, nor evidence proffered that the allegations made by respondent against Springee are in any way substantiated, so I do think that something more restrictive is warranted.) — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
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.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
Editor has reverted to re-include material at Hunter Biden in violation of active arbitration remedies and then refused to self-revert when advised of their transgression.
TarnishedPath
talk 14:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
@
Riposte97 the very fact that I edited to remove your change demonstrates that there was no consensus for your change. Other editors editing about other things, regardless the location in the article, does not demonstrate consensus for your change. The fact is that no one has discussed that specific sentence in talk, so your claim of consensus is completely without merit.
The easiest thing would have been for you to remedy your violation of active arbitration remedies, by self-reverting, when I raised your conduct on your user talk. However you have refused to remedy your violation from the point when I raised it until the present time. So here we are and you are still refusing to remedy your violation of active arbitration remedies.
Ps, I am also on a mobile device as I am away from my home for at least another week. That's no reason for this discussion to stall or for you not to do the correct thing and remedy your violation by self-reverting.
TarnishedPath
talk 02:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
@
ScottishFinnishRadish please note that as of
Special:Diff/1228842988 Riposte97‘s ability to self-revert has disappeared. They were provided the opportunity to self-revert a clear violation, they refused and decided to engage in arguments which had no merit.
TarnishedPath
talk 15:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
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.
Good morning,
I maintain that my revert restored consensus. As pointed out above, the sentence in question was inserted on 10 June UTC. A little over three days passed, before the submitter removed it. In that time, the page was edited dozens of times, and the lead extensively discussed on the talk page. I believed, and still do, that the circumstances illustrate consensus for the sentence.
If reasonable minds differ, I’d submit the easiest thing to do would be to raise the substance of any objection on the article talk page, rather than go straight to ANI.
Please note I am subject to the disadvantages of editing on mobile until I get home from work this evening.
Thanks.
@
Riposte97: To help advance this to a conclusion, could you please elaborate on your statement, I have now read and understood the policy
?
SPECIFICO
talk 21:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Riposte. While that is good practice, it is not why you were reported here. SPECIFICO talk 02:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
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.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
User Konanen is civilly pushing a point of view, promoting false neutrality, and editing tendentiously on the alternative medicine topic Reiki.
Konanen opened the NPOVN discussion linked above, in parallel to a discussion already occurring on the article's talk page, with a request to remove the term "quackery" because they personally found it offensive, and to omit "pseudoscience" because of the term being redundant due to its occurrence in a linked article. Several editors objected, and there was some discussion which led to copyediting some repetitive occurrences of "pseudoscience" and improving the attribution of "quackery", but no consensus is evident for either term's removal. The discussion basically concluded on 30 May, other than one editor who on 5 June added their own biased tally of votes supporting their position and began removing all instances describing the practice as pseudoscience from the article, as well as a large criticism section; the other editor was topic-banned in a different thread here.
In the course of reverting the topic-banned user's disruptive edits, user Valjean restored an earlier revision and inadvertently removed the {{ npov}} banner on 13 June. Konanen demanded that the banner be restored, referring to the false consensus and subsequent disruptive editing of the topic-banned user as evidence of ongoing discussion. When Valjean and Tgeorgescu responded essentially that two editors do not a consensus make, Konanen started the ANI thread reporting both users for personal attacks.
At ANI, several users both involved and not observed that Konanen is pushing the same POV as the topic-banned user, and expressed frustration over Konanen's insistence on displaying the neutrality banner. Several editors commented that the NPOVN discussion was concluded (e.g. [25], [26]), that the tag should be removed ( [27], [28]), and that Konanen should drop the issue (e.g. [29], [30], [31], [32]), with many already suggesting a topic ban. Valjean did restore the banner some time later in an effort to move on.
Another editor then invited Konanen to identify the issue in a new talk page section. Konanen insisted that they didn't need to provide an explanation for the banner, and implied that the banner should remain until they were satisfied with the NPOVN discussion's outcome. I attempted to explain that cleanup tags are not meant to be used in this way and, referring to the opinion of ANI that the discussion was concluded, removed the banner again, suggesting that they should re-add it themselves only if they had another issue to discuss. Konanen still refuses to accept this, and this morning demanded that I self-revert or cite policy supporting the removal, which is blatant wikilawyering, and posted a new tally of votes at NPOVN which serves no purpose other than to tendentiously relitigate a discussion result they do not agree with.
I therefore propose that they be banned from the topic. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 13:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
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.
Interesting to find myself here when all I have done is to advocate for discussion and transparency (by way of a POV tag) about said discussion pertaining to a matter of NPOV.
First of all, I object to the submitter’s falsehoods re two editors do not a consensus make
, as I will be showing further below, the tbanned editor and I were not the only ones who had objections to the article’s lead as it stood. I do not agree with their hasty edits, but that is not the issue at hand.
I reject the accusation of tendentious editing. Precisely because I have an opinion on the subject matter, and because I do not think I could do a better job than previous editors in fixing the perceived POV issues, have I not dared edit the article in question except for adding the POV tag. If talking about the content of an article, and taking the matter to NPOV/N for wider input is considered tendentious editing, then I apologise ― I was not aware that its definition had such a wide scope.
Valjean restored an early version, citing accidental removal (
[33]), but they were terse and bordered on personal attacks when I asked them to restore, hence the decision to take the matter to ANI, instead of edit warring over the issue (I hesitate to revert reverts
, as stated elsewhere).
The discussion on NPOV/N began on the 29th of May ( [34]), so alleging that discussion concluded on the 30th of May is disingenuous when there has been some activity since ( [35] [36] [37]).
I am partially to blame for the lull in activity between the 6th and 13th of June, but that should not stand in the way of the discussion’s legitimacy, considering that it has continued just fine without my input ( [38] [39]) which is further proof that the matter was not laid to rest, and there was no consensus reached that article is NPOV, wherefore there were no grounds for the removal of the POV tag (which Valjean had agreed to reinstate yesterday during the ANI procedure, but above submitter saw fit to remove again, even though the matter had not concluded on NPOV/N nor on the article’s talk page, see diffs below).
All that being said, since yesterday, there has been further opining about the article’s NPOV on its talk page as well as the noticeboard following Valjean’s substantial changes to the lead and my creating a summary of the discussion so far for a better overview ( [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]). In my humble opinion, we have come to a good arrangement as to the lead. I am not interested in keeping the POV tag for the tag’s sake, and I think a good discussion has given way to an acceptable compromise less than an hour ago ( [45]). I consider the matter satisfactorily discussed and remedied, and see no need for the POV tag to be restored at this time. Cheers, – Konanen ( talk) 17:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I believe that I may be the other user referred to by Ivanvector. I opened the talkpage section for the tag to give Konanen a chance (and any other editors, for that matter) to actually clearly state what NPOV issue was so prevalent in the article to merit a tag on the whole article. This way other editors could begin the process of improving any issues. Konanen replied that they do not agree that there needs to be any qualified raison d’être of the POV tag
, even though the tag itself says Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page
which is what I was attempting to begin. Regardless, a discussion over one word repeated maybe a couple times is not a discussion about the POV of the article as a whole that merits a NPOV tag. Rather than engage with their concerns on the talkpage constructively, they've continued trying to discuss at the NPOV/N. Seemingly now that Ivanvector has opened this thread, they've now backed off and said they have "no further problems" even though they were arguing to hide "pseudoscience" from being used in the article at all only a couple days prior.
Their behavior in the discussions leaves a lot to be desired - and whether they are well-intentioned or not, they've displayed their inability to constructively contribute to articles about pseudoscientific "medical treatments" on Wikipedia. I do not believe that a topic ban from all of medicine is merited necessarily, but a topic ban wider than reiki for sure. They started the discussion at NPOVN based on them finding the term pseudoscience "objectionable", and it is clear that early on they were on a crusade to legitimize reiki as scientifically sound and trusted. That alone should be enough evidence that they cannot contribute constructively to alternative medicine topics on Wikipedia, since they have admitted since the start that their personal objection is more important than the sources and discussion. A topic ban from alternative medicine need not be permanent, but the editor (who is still relatively new) should display their ability to have constructive and cooperative dialogue about article content before they should be allowed into the broader area again after this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 01:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
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.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
Facilitated communication has a
Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism tag on the talk page and the first source is
Skeptical Inquirer, and many other sources in the article are related to skepticism. There was also a minor BLPvio in the lead, linking
a former NFL player as the 33-year-old African-American man with severe mental disabilities who cannot speak, has cerebral palsy, and is unable to stand independently or accurately direct movements of his body
. The wikilink to
Anna Stubblefield is a redirect to a section of the
Facilitated communication article. These are their first edits upon return from a block for topic ban violations. My previous filing
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive331#Rp2006 contains a list with many of the warnings they were given before their recent block.
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.
A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.
To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.
This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.
Please make your request in the appropriate section:
Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
---|---|---|---|
Anachronist | 16 June 2024 | 0/0/0 |
Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
---|---|---|---|
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation | none | ( orig. case) | 7 June 2024 |
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads | none | none | 4 June 2024 |
Amendment request: India-Pakistan | none | ( orig. case) | 7 June 2024 |
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions | none | none | 10 June 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Use this section to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. This page is for statements, not discussion.
|
Initiated by — Kaalakaa (talk) at 07:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Anachronist, as an admin, seems to have some chronic issues with understanding our policies and guidelines.
Please stop confusing the new users here, and if you can't speak knowledgeably on this stuff, please stop." [9]
This has nothing to do with censorship, but with WP:BURDEN" [10]. So I opened a discussion and provided him with a quote from the source, but Anachronist said, "
I am not arguing that the statement was unsourced. I am saying that for a biography, we don't need to put undue emphasis on analysis of statements of faith." [11] This reply of his, in my opinion, has no relevancy with WP:BURDEN, and displays his misunderstanding of the policy.
you seem so clearly intent on misinterpreting multiple policies in order to exclude a legitimate academic source from a contentious article on entirely spurious grounds." At the end of the section, Anachronist said, "
I'm going to sleep now. A dispute over content should be continued on the article talk page. I'll look for it tomorrow." However, Anachronist did not reply again on that article's talk page [13].
books published by university presses" are among "
the most reliable sources." Within the essay, he also describes Russ Rodgers, a command historian of the US Army and former adjunct professor of history, as a hobbyist historian.
The bee in Kaalakaa's bonnet seems to arise from objections to his reliance on a source (Rodgers) in the Muhammad article for which he is the sole proponent, as that source is the primary topic of interaction Kaalakaa has had with me. For reference:
Iskandar323, DeCausa, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, and Admiral90 participated. Kaalakaa is the only editor promoting that source. The other points brought up appear to be WP:COATRACK grasping, and I won't waste my time addressing them, what happened happened, others are welcome to comment for better or worse. Otherwise, I'll add that the essay at WP:UPRESS, which seems also to irritate Kaalakaa who falsely claims it cites no reliable sources, is based on citations to two such sources, as well as the community discussions above, for which he also refuses to accept the arguments given.
I freely admit that I was inconsistent in my understanding of AE decisions. We live and learn. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 01:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
it's questionable that this assistant professor is even a notable scholar per WP:NPROFas if WP:N had anything to do with WP:RS, and than doubles down by describing the author as " WP:FRINGE". Per my comment on Anachronist's talk page, the author, Jürgen Schaflechner is
an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Heidelburg. He has been doing fieldwork directly related to the topic of the article for something like a decade. He is the co-editor, and a chapter contributor, to a book published by the Oxford University Press, where he analyses in detail the subject of the 'coerced conversion' topic. In summary, Schaflechner is as credible a source on a topic as Wikipedia policy could possibly expect, and about as non-fringe as could be imagined.
Ultimately Anachronist seemed to half-heartedly back down over some of these highly questionable claims, though still insisting that I had "violated AE" (see [17]). And frankly, even if that were true (I'm sure those familiar with policy will agree it isn't, after looking at the timeline, and the arguments presented), Anachronist's absurd arguments regarding the validity of a published academic - an anthropologist writing on a subject he had been researching through fieldwork for many years - as a source can only lead me to the conclusion that Anachronist is unfitted to be an admin. I cannot in good faith believe that it is acceptable for anyone in that position to be so at odds with core Wikipedia policy and yet remain in a position of trust.
From what I've read above, the issues with Anachronist don't have anything to do with their conduct as an admin. Even if we take every one of these complaints at face value, it all adds up to not understanding sourcing policy. Citing your own essay in an argument isn't a good look, but again, it's not an abuse of the admin tools. Looking at this another way, were they to be desysopped, that wouldn't affect their ability to do the things that they've been accused of doing. So I don't see why this is being framed as a request to desysop.
As I see no links to WP:AN or any other dispute resolution process, I imagine this will be declined. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 13:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Regarding RoySmith's query, the committee would have to ask the filer for their understanding, but mine would be along the lines that if someone can hold such an... adjacent (mis)understanding of some of our most fundamental policies, then can they be trusted with advanced permissions? The way things are going, I don't know. ——Serial Number 54129 13:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Is this Arbcom request filed correctly? The links for previous discussion or WP:DR went missing. Might be these following discussions between them?
Talk:Muhammad/Archive_34#Recent_revert_that_cites_WP:BURDEN or this one [18]? Have there been any discussion on WP:ANI before coming to here since ARBCOM is really the last step?-- -Lemonaka 14:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
It may be a good idea to place Wikipedia:Reliable sources (university presses) for WP:MFD. Its only (very few) uses are by Anachronist, and it appears to contradict standing norms. As to the rest of this, perhaps a WP:TROUT is warranted. But, sanctions? Having a few mistaken impressions and exiting a conversation doesn't seem to rise to the bar of sanctioning someone. Admins don't enjoy special protections above any editor here, but if this case is accepted it's guaranteed to result in Anachronist being de-adminned. The levels of off base behavior simply don't rise to that level. Anachronist has used admin privileges more than 14,000 times, or about a thousand a year since passing their RfA. If Anachronist is really that far off the rails, let's see some evidence of inappropriate or flat wrong use of admin privileges. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 15:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Aoidh: The history over time proves otherwise. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 01:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Aoidh: As I noted above, admins don't enjoy additional protections. My point is that if the case is accepted, Anachronist will be de-adminned, and that must be taken into account. Yes take cases on their own merits, but don't blindly walk into the turbine blades in the name of justice. Does this case really rise to that level or are there alternatives? 14,000 admin actions getting it right across 14 years and now we are here? There's more going on here, and admins aren't supposed to be perfect. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 12:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
For the record; every time ArbCom has accepted a party named case about an administrator over the last six years the administrator has been de-adminned. I stopped counting after 10. I guess somehow when ArbCom's batting 1.000 it's reasonable to assume Anachronist wouldn't be de-adminned if this case is accepted. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 14:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Just FYI I moved the essay back to their userspace just now, noting in the move log "per our longstanding policy of keeping extreme minority opinion essays in the userspace of the person who wrote them" Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
The issues being raised are legitimate and warrant discussion. However, and as noted by others above, there is no evidence that this matter has been previously addressed in any other forum. Absent a credible claim that Anachronist has abused the tools, this appears to be premature and I suggest the committee decline the requested case. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
"Anachronist, as an admin, seems to have some chronic issues..." Meh. Some potentially troutable interpretations of policy at most that would raise a minor ripple if this had been brought to ANI first. My experience of these two editors have been at the Muhammad article. I've seen and interacted with Anachronist there for the last decade and a half (both under current and former name). He's been a balanced, reasonable and calming influence on what can be a choppy talk page. Certainly a net positive there. Kaalakaa appeared there about 12 months ago and their voluminous edits resulted in a complete re-write of this prominent article over 2-3 months - but it's been with a discernible POV, and a dubious selection of sources. This happened less than two months after the account was created. Kaalakaa showed a high familiarity with the nuts and bolts of editing and policy for such a new account. See WP:RSN#RfC: Sources for Muhammad for more on their sourcing choices. As was pointed out in that thread there is discomfort with what Kaalaaka has pushed through, including from Anachronist. Hemiauchenia summarises it accurately here. This Arbcom request is about attacking opposition in a content dispute and the Committee should dismiss. DeCausa ( talk) 21:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't quite see why Arbitration needs to be sought here if there haven't been prior attempts at dispute resolution. There isn't some egregious abuse of administrative tools here, and this fundamentally looks to be a sourcing dispute in a particular article.
Rather than entertaining arbitration here, I would encourage the ArbCom to decline this and the parties to pursue normal content dispute resolution. This can take the form of discussions on WP:RSN regarding the reliability of particular sources, as well as formal RfCs on the article talk page if there is some article-specific content issue. But I just don't see how we need to invoke the last resort of arbitration at this point. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
Is there some reason ArbCom needs to handle this case? Are the allegations, if proven true, enough to merit a sanction? Is there enough evidence to suggest the allegations have a reasonable chance to be proven true?The latter two questions appear to have the answer as yes, considering I apply a lower standard for admins. So far the first question, even though this is an admin, seems to be a no. I will wait to see if more evidence emerges to answer that question before deciding whether to vote to accept or decline this case. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
lost the trust or confidence of the community(per WP:ADMINACCT) then the community needs to have a reasonable chance to decide if that's the case. - Aoidh ( talk) 00:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)
{{subst:
Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}}
to do this.This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.
Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
General consensus among participating Arbitrators is that nothing needs to be done at this point in time. Primefac ( talk) 20:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Initiated by HouseBlaster at 02:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement by HouseBlasterThe
Manual of Style and
Article title policy are jointly authorized contentious topics. Speaking for myself, I have It seems that others are also unaware (in the conventional sense) that article titles are CTOPICs; at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions it was about three days and 26KB of discussion before Guerrillero pointed out that article titles are already designated as a CTOP. The MOS and article titles are related, but distinct, issues. I think they should be split into seperate CTOPs to reflect the fact that they are distinct issues. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 02:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Extraordinary WritSplitting the remedy is probably more trouble than it's worth. But while we're here: there hasn't been a logged sanction under this case since 2020, and that's probably because its scope is so narrow that most title- or MOS-related disruption isn't covered. Honestly there's a strong argument for just repealing it altogether, although the timing may not be right for that. An alternative would be to expand it to include RMs and the like (certainly there have been plenty of issues there), but that would give administrators an awful lot of discretion. The status quo of having the CTOP cover just the policy/guideline pages (which are often less contentious than the RMs) doesn't really make sense to me, though, and the lack of use suggests it's not doing much of value. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC) Statement by SarekOfVulcanI would oppose splitting them, because the application of the MOS guidelines to the article titles policy was a large part of the controversy that caused me to file the case in the first place. See also Comet Hale–Bopp. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Statement by {other-editor}Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information. Article titles and capitalisation: Clerk notes
Article titles and capitalisation: Arbitrator views and discussion
|
Initiated by Just Step Sideways at 22:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Two recent situations have revealed what appears to be some vagueness regarding when and if users should email private evidence to the committee, the utility of doing so when it concerns a curent on-wiki, but non-ArbCom discussion, and also if merely saying that a thread exists is not permitted.
(I seem to recall that there is a case somewhere where the committee discussed very similar issues, but I've been unable to locate it in the archives.)
I feel like this has the potantial to create a chilling effect where users will be afraid to post anything at all on off-wiki criticism sites, no matter how innocuous their posts are the topic being discussed may be, and that even mentioning the name of a thread on such a site is now forbidden, which seems a bit extreme to me.
I understand and agree that directly posting a link on-wiki to a specific post that contains outing is a clear violation of the outing policy. It is less clear to me that posting merely the name of an extremely long thread with no actual link to the thread at all is a violation. I would therefore ask that the committee clarify where the line is.
I've deliberately not named the individuals involved in these incidents as this is matter of interpretation of policy, specifically Wikipedia:Oversight. I can email more detailed information if needed but I imagine it should be fairly easy for you all to determine what I'm referring to. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
there is never a situation that calls for linking to or discussing a Wikipediocracy thread.seems a bit extreme to me. Do I agree with everything that is said and done over there? No, but I could say the same about here. There are several ongoing threads over there that contain valid and insightful criticism of Wikipedia content and policy. I have personally taken multiple actions here that have improved the project, that I likely wouldn't have done had I not read the criticism over there. I'd tell you which ones but right now it is unclear to me if I'm even allowed to say. Dispairaiging remarks like
No need to point people to WPO to hear ten blocked trolls give their opinions on it.aren't helpful. I seem to recall you saying at some point that you have never actually read anything over there, so it's hard to understand how you formed your opinions. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Editors need to make a choice between their loyalty to Wikipedia and its editors versus their social life elsewhere.is pretty wild. You can't be critical of Wikipedia content or contributors or you're a traitor, choose a side. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I think it would be very interesting to hear ArbCom opinions on this question. In part, this issue comes up in the context of the 2024 RfA reform discussions heading in the direction of wanting accusations of wrongdoing against RfA candidates to be backed up with specific evidence, and the question comes up of how to provide specific evidence when it cannot be posted onsite. Does ArbCom want editors to submit such evidence about RfA candidates to ArbCom, and if so, can ArbCom respond to the evidence in a way that is sufficiently timely to be useful for RfA? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I have lots of thoughts, but they boil down to: we will not link to (or obliquely mention) any thread with outing/doxxing; consider whether it is accessible to the public so it can be verified; and consider whether the WP user has linked themselves to the off-wiki account. If any of the 3 tests fail, then you can't bring it up at RFA (or anywhere else at WP). Sorry, the world is imperfect. Based on this, you would very often be able to discuss a Discord discussion, and very often not be able to discuss a WO discussion, but with exceptions in both cases. It seems like further details on this aren't useful until and unless I become God Emperor of WP, and can just implement it, but I can expand if someone wants. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 23:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I see this as a matter for the community, rather than ARBCOM. To me the heart of the matter is if, and how, we can discuss Wikipedia editors' off-wiki activities. ARBCOM has a role to play when off-wiki conduct impinges on on-wiki matters enough; typically, for harassment, collusion, or other disruption of our core purpose. The off-wiki conduct that has become a matter of discussion at RFA is very different: it isn't a violation of any of our PAGs, it is just behavior some editors find objectionable in an RFA candidate. We treat the off-wiki lives of our editors as private, and rightfully so. Discord and WPO are weird, in that they are strictly off-wiki fora populated by a large number of Wikipedians in good standing. I don't think it's an unreasonable position to take that behavior there shouldn't be immune to on-wiki scrutiny if it becomes relevant to on-wiki matters; I also don't think it's unreasonable to say that what happens off-wiki should stay there until and unless our PAGs are being violated, and then it needs to go to ARBCOM. But that's an area in which current policy seems to not cover all the contingencies, and the community needs to grapple with that. I don't see how a comment like this is useful to send to ARBCOM, or what ARBCOM could do if it was; but we're clearly unsettled as a community that it was posted, and we need to figure out guidelines for it. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 01:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree that some clarification from the committee on these matters would be helpful. This isn't entirely up to them—for example, the ban on discussing Discord discussions is the result of a community RfC and it would be inappropriate to modify it either way here—but ArbCom has historically played a role in making editors feel generally uncomfortable about linking to things off-wiki. More specifically, a 2007 remedy pronouncing that quoting private correspondence is a copyright violation is still on the books and still cited in WP:EMAILPOST. Does the current committee agree with this interpretation?
In addition, ArbCom has a responsibility to regulate the oversight team, and I've had a feeling for a long time now that they been enforce an extremely broad understanding of what constitutes "outing" that is not necessarily reflective of broader community opinion. Some direction there could also be very helpful: OS is used as "tool of first resort", or so the mantra goes, but we shouldn't underestimate how chilling it is to have an edit suppressed. – Joe ( talk) 08:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
profiles on external sites, and by extension posts associated with those profiles, can reasonably be considered "personal information". For me it's the latter that is the problem here; the former is a good rule when applied to genuine personal information. Interestingly, it's also a relatively recent addition to the harassment policy, [19] [20] following this discussion in December 2020. The reason given for the addition was to bring the policy in line with the practice of oversighters, which rather speaks to my point of the OS team pushing things in a more conservative direction, not necessarily the community as a whole. – Joe ( talk) 06:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I'd like an opinion on this as well, not necessarily just for RFA. Specific to WP:Discord, I !voted in the Discord RFC to restrict copying and linking Discord messages. I did so based on my reading of OUTING, HARASSMENT, and the community expectations of IRC logs, rather than strictly what I'd prefer. That consideration included what Joe references about the copyright concern of "private" messages, which seems to be part of the long standing rationale around IRC messages. I've also seen several times people suggest that OUTING goes as far as covering someone outing themselves on another Wikimedia project (i.e. a user page on eswiki), meaning that's not good enough to mention here on English Wikipedia. Prior to SUL, that may well have been, but SUL is long done. So what I'm really driving at is: Where is the line on identifying yourself sufficiently to be mentioned on site? Particular to the Discord, we have OAuth integration through an open source bot hosted on WMF resources. Is this enough to count as self-disclosure? Or does the connection to Discord have to be on-site (i.e. a userbox or otherwise)? Revisiting the Discord RFC is on the community, but some of these questions, such as EMAILPOST and how OS will act, are at least partially under Arbcom as Joe notes. -- ferret ( talk) 13:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Regarding Ferret's comments regarding disclosures on other SUL wikis. I have a vague recollection that this was discussed previously, but I don't remember where. I don't think a single hard and fast rule can be applied to that, but it's a matter of how reasonable it is to expect en.wp editors to be aware of the disclosure. For example if you make a disclosure on another wiki and you prominently link to that page from your userpage here, that should count as disclosing it here. If you disclose something on your e.g. eswiki userpage and make it clear on your userpage here that you contribute to eswiki, then again it's reasonable to take that as having been disclosed to the English Wikipedia. However, if you state something on the e.g. Russian wikisource's equivalent of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, and don't link to that page here, then it has not been disclosed to the English Wikipedia. Obviously there will be many things in between the extremes that can only be decided on a case-by-case basis. However, unless you are sure it has been intentionally or obviously disclosed somewhere it is reasonable to expect English Wikipedia editors to be aware of, then assume it has not been disclosed. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I think the community wants to have pretty firm protections against doxxing
I'd like the committee to make an explicit distinction between persons involved in the act of doxxing (or say vote canvassing or any other misconduct) on third-party sites, and persons who participate on those sites but are not abettors. It's futile to overreach and police what editors do and say outside wikipedia. Hypothetically speaking, I can say whatever I want on any third party site with a fictitious name, without any possibility of repercussion on my activity on wikipedia. Arbcom should act exclusively on cases where they find evidence of misconduct by an editor off-wiki without attaching any vicarious liability to other participants on that off-wiki platform. —
hako9 (
talk) 19:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
@
Levivich JSS/Beebs, you posted in that same thread over there six times since that post was made, and not a single word about this very open threat.
What is JSS supposed to do? Chide Vigilant aggressively so that they stop doxxing? As if that would work? The doxxing is going to happen whether editors here participate there or not. —
hako9 (
talk) 23:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
CaptainEek Statements like there is never a situation that calls for linking to or discussing a Wikipediocracy thread
are problematic. Are you suggesting that if I were to discuss my resignation of the tools in late 2013, a Wikipediocracy post--that persists to this day in somewhat redacted form--doxxing me and listing my employer's name and phone number and my home address and phone number (that were redacted so quickly by WPO leadership I couldn't confirm their accuracy) and several other identifying bits of information would be off limits for me to bring up to discuss the circumstances of my tools resignation? I'd like to think that, as the person doxxed, it is my prerogative to mention, discuss, or even link to such a thread, and the clear sense of
WP:OUTING is that such linkage would be permitted if done by me. (For the record, none of the information is particularly threatening to me 10 1/2 years later. Those overly interested can Google my current employer and discover why.)
Jclemens (
talk) 18:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
One of the first things I did after learning about it was searching my own name on there; boy was that a bad decision.CaptainEek, you highlight one of the ongoing negatives of Wikipediocracy: regulars there have a love/hate, but mostly hate, relationship with Wikipedia administrators that can have a demoralizing effect on Wikipedia editors. While I would also not recommend any admin or outspoken user search the site for their username, once having done so, it can be instructive to see how particular actions are discussed. In at least one case, only after being pointed to Wikipediocracy and reading the relevant thread did I understand the opposition to a stance I took. So while linking to criticism of another editor may well remain off limits, each mentioned editor should be made aware of the potential to review critics' unfiltered thoughts at the site. Jclemens ( talk) 23:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
A couple of days ago on WPO, Vigilant, the WPO user who most often doxes Wikipedia editors and openly threatens to continue doing so, wrote, in response to Eek's comments here, "Sounds like Eek needs an exposé" (link omitted). JSS/Beebs, you posted in that same thread over there six times since that post was made, and not a single word about this very open threat. Here, your third post is "Dispairaiging remarks like 'No need to point people to WPO to hear ten blocked trolls give their opinions on it.' aren't helpful." That's pretty bad: you take the time to criticize someone for criticizing WPO, but you don't criticize WPO for threatening to 'expose' editors.
(Also, Beebs, give up the "but they read it!" line of argument. Of course people who criticize WPO read it. Just like people on WPO read Wikipedia even though they criticize Wikipedia. This is not the "gotcha" that you seem to think it is: if people didn't criticize things they read, or didn't read the things they criticize, there would no criticism at all. Perhaps that's what you want?)
So w/r/t JSS's comment in the OP that "this has the potential to create a chilling effect where users will be afraid to post anything at all on off-wiki criticism sites," that chilling effect is good and we want that. Just like WPO is trying to create a chilling effect on Wikipedia by threatening to dox editors they disagree with, Wikipedia should create a chilling effect, or a taboo, about participating in off-wiki websites that dox editors, even if those websites refer to themselves as "criticism sites." There are other reasons not to have a blanket prohibition on linking or referring to another website (one of those reasons is so we can call people out for their wikipediocracy hypocrisy, as I am doing here), but "chilling effect" ain't it.
Levivich (
talk) 19:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
While I think the idea of prohibiting mention of the ignominious badsites and offsites was done with the best of intentions, it seems to very obviously and directly facilitate and enable any manner of bad behavior. In general, the way it ends up working in practice is something like:
Here is another example:
Another:
Whatever the reasoning was behind this omerta stuff, it seems in practice to have almost entirely bad implications -- it certainly doesn't stop people from going to WPO and doing whatever they want (trash-talking other editors, getting out the vote for RfCs/AfDs/etc, weird mafioso larping) -- the only thing it actually stops is us talking about it or doing something about it.
Contrariwise, this isn't even much of a benefit for WPO -- people onwiki are also completely free to just say stuff with no evidence because "well I can't link to it or tell anybody what it is". jp× g 🗯️ 03:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
As the victim of doxxing (and threats of same) and nasty, uncivil, and snide criticism on the named off-wiki website by at least one admin (who should lose their tools) and a few fringe(*) editors here, the comment by @ Just Step Sideways: is very ironic. (* "Fringe" is defined as editors who get their POV from unreliable sources and edit and discuss accordingly here.) Just Step Sideways writes:
Whatever happened to the matter of far more importance to Wikipedia, and that is the chilling effect HERE created by those nasty off-wiki comments from other editors who should be considered good-faith colleagues here? How can one edit and discuss around such editors and ever feel safe again? The "enjoyment of editing" here is totally undermined by them. Trust has been violated. The chilling effect is enormous and constant, and one lives under a cloud of pressure from their illicit and bad faith stalking and harassment. I know this will immediately be reported there by traitors from here, but it needs to be said.
Editors need to be protected, and their enjoyment of editing here should not be threatened by uncollegial criticism, snide comments, and threats of doxxing elsewhere. It invites even worse behavior from bad actors who may not even be editors here. It's a dog whistle. Editors need to make a choice between their loyalty to Wikipedia and its editors versus their social life elsewhere. Keep a wall between them. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks to @ Levivich:, @ Vanamonde93:, and @ JPxG: for your insights. You seem to understand the problem. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Puzzling that Beebs would feel the need to poke a stick into a beehive. This is not an Arb matter, if anything it is a community matter, and it's really not that. Criticism websites have existed almost as long as there has been a Wikipedia and over these 15+ years, people have a pretty good implied understanding of what is in and what is out. Mentions are one thing, links maybe another. In any event, it strikes me as dumb to overgeneralize about a message board as it is to overgeneralize about Wikipedia — projecting its worst foibles as in some way representative of the whole. This is clearly a No Action sort of request, methinks, and good for that. For those of you who demonize WPO, pop over and have a beer with us sometime, we don't bite very hard. —tim /// Carrite ( talk) 23:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
We rejected this back in 2007. Could we please stop trying to sneak it back in? Mangoe ( talk) 00:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Recently an administrator in an AfD linked to WPO as an argument for their !vote in AfD. I notified the administrator who posted this link that there are personal attacks about me in the thread. The admin ignored my concern. I notified arbcom multiple times and they ignored me. I notified oversight and they ignored me. So it appears to me that we are selective in who we protect here on the project. Me, not so much, the RFA candidate? Yes. I am especially disappointed in Barkeep49 and the arbcom crew for their complete lack of attention to this issue. When it is against policy to use PAs but it is ok to link to an outside site that allows PAs we have a reason to be concerned.
The AfD was clearly canvassed at WPO and editors came to Wikipedia en-masse to ignore our guidelines and policies so they could remove the article. That canvassing is a separate issue but certainly tied to the same issue. Listen it is creepy having this anti-wikipedia site linked to us like a sister project. It is even creepier that some admins are enthusiastic supporters and participants at WPO. Lightburst ( talk) 15:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
"possibly under their real name"happens will matter a huge amount. If there's not a real name, I'm not aware of practice/procedure to suggestion action against (as with scenario 1). If there is a real name that has not been revealed under policy, it would seem to be eligible for oversighting. Are you suggesting that WPO be exempt from Oversighting in this scenario? And I don't understand what you're suggesting is the real impact of scenario 3. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Its not that you're forbidden from discussing the nonsense at WPO, but its not recommended and can in fact be avoided. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
we will not link to (or obliquely mention) any thread with outing/doxxing; consider whether it is accessible to the public so it can be verified; and consider whether the WP user has linked themselves to the off-wiki account. If any of the 3 tests fail, then you can't bring it up at RFA. However, I do agree with Joe and others that the Committee has some role to play, though I would prefer to share that role with the broader Oversight team. With OS, I find that 98% or so of the OS requests are clear yes or clear no under policy and require little thought on my part to action. It's the remaining 2% where the OS team should work to have consistency (I think ArbCom should set the expectation that there be less variation in OS response than in other admin areas, including CU). In the noticeboard example that JSS gives, this fell in that 2% which is why I consulted with someone else before taking action. Beyond this, there has been a lot of discussion about WPO of which I have a number of opinions about but is also not a unique use case when it comes to mentioning/linking to off-wiki threads/discussions which I see as the matter before us and thus doesn't need any special analysis beyond what I've written above. Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Initiated by Jéské Couriano at 16:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Over the past month or so we've been having members of the Indian Armed Forces either editing or attempting to create articles concerning military regiments in India. It's only recently come to light that this is a concerted effort by the Indian Army itself; practically all accounts involved have failed to disclose their connexions and very few have used their talk pages (and those that do tend to describe it as an order from higher up that they don't really have a choice but to obey). I'm not as concerned about the drafts, as they're G5-eligible. What I am concerned about are the pages already in mainspace that have been targeted by this campaign, such as 1889 Missile Regiment (India) and a host of others; see User:Jéské Couriano/2024 Indian Military Regiment Spam for a more complete list. I'm seeking to have the 500/30 rule apply specifically in the Indian military regiments topic area to stymie editing of this sort and to force these editors to the talk pages of the articles to make their case.
It seems like page protection is already available in the standard set of CTOP restrictions, and the Committee has confirmed in the past that 30/500 is included in that. Protecting such a large number of articles might be slightly stretching the intended limits of what a single administrator can do, but since page restrictions may be imposed to minimize disruption in a contentious topic
rather than disruption on a single page, it seems like it would be valid. Unless the Committee disagrees with my interpretation, I'd be willing to temporarily ECP the necessary pages.
The Wordsmith
Talk to me 17:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
there's no realistic way to predict which specific article the newest sock, either registered or IP, is going to editmeans that short of applying ECP to most or all of the articles in this topic area (which isn't reasonable) WP:ARBECR doesn't seem like it would address the issue. It would, however, create more barriers to other editors who would like to edit those articles. - Aoidh ( talk) 21:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Initiated by EggRoll97 at 03:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Multiple pages protected under contentious topics procedures this year alone (see
WP:AEL#Armenia-Azerbaijan_(CT/A-A) for just a sample) have been protected under arbitration enforcement but have no editnotice or other restriction notice applied to the page. This is despite a line recurring in contentious topics procedures pages being, in part, When a page has active page restrictions, the following template must be used as an editnotice
, and the
contentious topics procedures page itself stating that an editnotice is required prior to blocking an editor for a violation, even if they are aware of contentious topics procedures, with the language of However, breaches of a page restriction may result in a block or editor restriction only if: The editor was aware that they were editing in a contentious topic, and The restricted page displayed an editnotice ({{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} or a derived topic-specific template) specifying the page restriction.
Because of this, I ask for clarification as to whether these editnotices can be added to pages by any editor if the enforcing administrator has not done so, or whether they may only be added by the administrator who has applied the page restriction.
The edit notice can be added by editors with the page mover permission. Idk whether the idea of CT was to do away with this requirement but I don't think it did so in my usual area (AI/IP), the Arbpia edit notice (and talk page notice which can be added by any editor) is needed in general. Selfstudier ( talk) 08:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Editnotices can be created by administrators, page movers, and template editors. If an editnotice exists, most editors can edit it, and I'd support non-admins rectifying clerical errors wherever possible. Speaking of which, if someone wants to collect some pages that need editnotices, I'm happy to cross a bunch of them off the list.
Arbs, I'd suggest that common practice has moved away from such editnotices being necessary. Between admins forgetting, banner blindness, and mobile editors not seeing them at all, I don't think the notices are meaningful in generating awareness of the restriction. Enforcement of restrictions these days tends to be dependent on both formal CTOP awareness and a request to self-revert being ignored or declined, meaning a few other checks are in place to avoid unwarranted sanctions. Would the committee consider changing this requirement to a recommendation? Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 18:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
An administrator who imposes a page restriction (other than page protection) must add an editnotice to restricted pages using the standard template ({{ Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} or a derived topic-specific template), and should generally add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.(formatting removed). Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
{{Contentious topics/editnotice|XYZ}}
as an edit notice to pages clearly fully related to XYZ
would be helpful, even if no protection has happened yet.{{Contentious topics/editnotice|...|section=yes}}
as an edit notice to pages related to XYZ
closely enough to justify an existing CTOP page protection would also be helpful.{{Contentious topics/editnotice|blp}}
to BLPs, as being in
Category:Living people already causes {{
BLP editnotice}} to appear.
~ ToBeFree (
talk) 23:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)![]() | This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment. |
![]() | Important information Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{ Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
Sentaso is indefinitely topic banned from WP:BLPs, broadly construed, and is given a final warning to avoid incivility. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 10:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Sentaso
Editor had edited Nick McKenzie to insert material which RfC determined should not be in the article. Upon being advised by myself of consensus (as determined by RfC close) and what they could do if disagree with the close, editor has sought to misinterpret WP policy and engaged in casting WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:ABF. Editor appears to be a WP:SPA who is editing to WP:RGW. TarnishedPath talk 14:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Sentaso, I have moved your comment to your section. Please write any comments you have in your section of the notice. TarnishedPath talk 09:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning SentasoStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Sentaso2. @ TarnishedPath: JML1148 in their own words stated "numerical majority against removing the content" and then claimed there was consensus to remove the content. - Yes, yourself and others related to this appear to be Australian as per your Wikipedia profiles. Mckenzie is Australian, and there's seems to be a commonality of those in favor of removing content related him are also Australian. Certainly potential for Conflict_of_interest 3. Evidence was in point 2 above re JML1148 comment. 4. I didn't reinsert anything, I don't know why you're making things up that WP history shows to be false. I added to the discussion highlighting it had been prematurely closed. I've also asked who/when the discussion was deemed over and with what authority, which you didn't answer. If yourself and associates had followed WP best practice there would clear sections on the page detailing why the page would be archived. The page has been blasted with text claiming the discussion is closed, but there appears to be no grounds for closure. I've asked you several times if you could source why this page was archived, which you've ignored, likely because you cannot. 5. As per comments on their Talk page (which he keeps removing) it appears TarnishedPath does not understand some aspects of WP:BLP. A quote of yours from the Mckenzie archive "if McKenzie is not named, then what is the material doing on a WP:BLP about McKenzie? TarnishedPathtalk 00:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)" BLPs do not always need to explicitly mention the subject's name as long as the information can be clearly and unambiguously attributed to the subject 6. Duplicate content, see my point 2 above. 7. You don't understand BLP, one should be grateful I highlighted your misunderstanding on your talk page 8. Duplicate content
Regarding comments below, these references to talk pages are a red herring. The real issue is why the Mckenzie discussion page was archived, the sham RFC and why BLP is not being followed correctly for the Mckenzie page. Tarnished Path falsely suggested that BLP need to name the person which is incorrect. I did him a favor by raising this issue on his talk page and he gets aggressive and removes the content. Why not focus on the main issues instead of the number of edits a user has? Unhelpful Sentaso ( talk) 13:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Sentaso
|
JDiala is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. Doug Weller talk 10:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning JDiala
User has a pattern of edit warring, incivility and NotForum violations, including but not limited to:
Issue is generally apparent on topics regarding I/P, with at least one occurrence in topics regarding Judaism. This is my first AE filing, so apologies for any errors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:JDiala&diff=prev&oldid=1227053862
Discussion concerning JDialaStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by JDiala
Update 06/05/24: In response to The Wordsmith's comment regarding recent diffs, I will say that while my tone was not the best, I think each case ultimately reflected a desire to cooperate and contribute meaningfully. I was not being uncivil for the sake of being uncivil. In this case it is true that I made an uncalled for comparison between closing an RfC and Israeli settlements. But the actual motivation here is to cooperate and accept that the community decided my RfC (and my closure) were not good and started a new one. In this case, I will concede that my tone was poor. The claim "[other] states like China and Russia, while awful, are significantly richer and more interesting societies" could be perceived as bigoted towards Israelis, and I should have worded it better in retrospect. I apologize to those offended. However, if one can get past the initial gut reaction that my comment was ridiculous, there was a legitimate underlying motivation. Other editors were questioning why other countries did not have war crimes in their leads, but Israel does. I responded with what I considered a policy-based reason for this: that WP:RS for Israel tends to disproportionately focus on war crimes (narrower focus), whereas for some other states (Russia, China) the RS discuss things more broadly ("richer"). That said, I will be more mindful of tone in the future if given a second chance. Note: to stay within the 500-word limit after the update, I significantly shortened the points I wrote earlier. JDiala ( talk) 19:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by Rajoub570After posting a message on the admin noticeboard regarding this issue, I saw that there is already a discussion here. So reposting it here (shortened): The Israeli–Palestinian conflict, what is known here as ARBPIA, is a very sensitive issue. My personal opinion, as someone that the conflict also concerns his personal life (I am Palestinian :)) One should deal with the issue carefully. I would like to raise the issue of one editor - @ JDiala's behavior that, as I see it, not only harm's Wikipedia's objectivity, but also harms the chance of a peaceful life in our area. Here are some examples:
I saw that editors have been asking them to moderate their language many times before. [ link - 2014], [ link - 2015], [ link - January 2024], [ link - February 2024]. The editor even received a week-long ban in December for violating 1RR. [ link] As a Palestinian, whose life is affected daily by the conflict, with my criticisms of Israel, I find this behavior problematic for Wikipedia. We have to stay objective. I think JDiala should be asked not to deal at all with a topic that clearly arouses their anger. Their edits hurt the project, and ultimately the Palestinians as well. Please don't add fuel to the fire. Rajoub570 ( talk) 15:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by Sean.hoylandI think both FortunateSons and JDiala are assets for ARBPIA. Very different kinds of assets with very different tones. This conversation shows how hard it is to build bridges and find common ground in ARBPIA. It would be good if JDiala could find a way to live with and adapt to what they regard as tone policing in the topic area. It's unfortunate that, in my view anyway, ARBCOM constraints accidentally create a selection pressure that give a fitness advantage to quiet, nearly invisible, highly motivated sockpuppets over noisy editors like JDiala. Regarding "X do not go out to murder Y because they are Y", quotes from award winning Israeli journalists like Amira Hass are normally acceptable on Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland ( talk) 03:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC) Regarding The Kip's objection to the (evidence-free) labeling of someone as a suspected sockpuppet, this seems all well and good, and is consistent with AGF etc., but for me, it's another example of the fitness asymmetry between sockpuppets and noisy, undiplomatic editors like JDiala. Editors can't cast sock-related aspersions at AE, but undetected/unreported ban evading sockpuppets can make statements at AE. And as history shows, in the WP:PIA topic area, AE attracts socks. This seems problematic and difficult to solve. Sean.hoyland ( talk) 06:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC) I wonder what the views would be here if JDiala had never posted any personal views to a talk page and only made content edits. Is the issue what an editor believes or what an editor says in discussions? If it is the latter, couldn't there be a PIA remedy between a warning and a topic ban that formally promotes WP:TALKPOV from a guideline to a policy for an editor as a step before a topic ban. That kind of WP:TALKPOV-as-policy remedy is effectively already enforced for non-EC editors posting to PIA talk pages. Comments that are just personal opinions about the real world have a near-zero survival rate. Sean.hoyland ( talk) 18:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by kashmiriWhile certainly not raising to the level of an immediate block, the continuous low-lewel disruption by JDiala, evidenced above, has been annoying enough to many editors, including to me, that a temporary TBAN feels like an appropriate response. — kashmīrī TALK 17:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by ZanaharyVery BATTLEGROUND-y in a way that is disruptive. I'd support a TBAN. On the user page quote: though I find the quote disgusting, and my interpretation of its presence on the user page is, to say the least, not positive, I don't believe in trying to interpret editors' views when it comes to making decisions about how to treat them, nor in sanctioning editors for their apparent views—I think sanctions should only be practical, and I think everyone has the right to whatever expressions and whatever impressions they desire (out of article-space). But I understand I'm in a serious minority there (right?). Anyways, that's all irrelevant. This user is disruptive and clearly doesn't edit with the care and spirit of collaboration that this topic area demands. Zanahary ( talk) 23:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Coffee CrumbsFor the record, I'm at least slightly involved now as I have expressed dislike of JDiala's tone during the current RFC. As Kashmiri notes, it's not vandalism or one big blowup, but tiny bits of pecking away. The RFC close was absolutely atrocious; rather than see an unusually sparsely attended RFC on what is normally a well-attended topic, JDiala took it upon themself to close their own RFC in favor of their own proposal in an extremely contentious area. Between the quotes that ended up at ANI and the constant pushing of the singular subject as far as civility and stretching WP:NPOV like taffy, JDiala's a net negative in this area. Justifying their extreme one-sided behavior towards Israel by saying that there are "other states like China and Russia, while awful, are significantly richer and more interesting societies" and then comparing the idea of having a proper RFC to Israel's response when settlers' war crimes are alleged, is just more gasoline on the fire. Real WP:BATTLEGROUND stuff here. CoffeeCrumbs ( talk) 00:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by BilledMammal
BilledMammal ( talk) 01:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by The KipI've had little to no direct interactions with the user in question prior to today - I believe the closest I've come was voting to overturn the questionable RfC closure on account of it being a self-close in a CTOP. Upon interacting with their talk page (in a notice to move their comments in other users' sections above), I personally don't believe dismissing RSes as wholly unreliable due to being "sourced from Israel," nor referring to above complainants as "opponents," is indicative of one who will contribute constructively and cooperatively in the area over the long term; there certainly seems to be a considerable WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset at play. The Kip ( contribs) 05:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Red Rock CanyonI am not involved in this case, but I saw this user's edits on the Leo Frank talk page. [22] is a lie, since even the line in the lead had another source right before the CNN one. It is not credible that they somehow missed it. And this [23] is worse. I see that this editor was already warned for these comments, but I think the warning is insufficient. They should not be allowed to edit any article that has anything to do with Jews. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 11:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by SelfstudierI have had a couple of differences with this editor but over content only. Should really dial the rhetoric back a couple of notches or a sanction is a foregone conclusion. Selfstudier ( talk) 17:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by LonghornsgThese additional diffs from a few days ago leave a lot to be desired on WP:NOTFORUM and WP:CIVILITY. Longhornsg ( talk) 03:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by MakeandtossI have dealt with JDiala and they were very open to discussion on the talk page. Over the past few months I have personally witnessed firsthand how quick they improved their behavior as soon as they were notified about a guideline or policy that they had not been aware about. I think it is a learning experience for them and so far they have shown no disruptive behavior of the sort that requires anything beyond a notification or a warning. Makeandtoss ( talk) 11:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by ScottishFinnishRadishJust noting that I'm staying out of this since some of the recent stuff deals with their response to my close of the close review at AN and their behavior on my talk page. Although I don't see myself as INVOLVED since it looks like there's some engagement from other uninvolved admins it's probably best to let them handle it. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by ABHammadI believe the diffs presented above demonstrate a pattern of deeply inflammatory, battleground behavior in this topic area that unfortunately, wouldn't be solved by just a temporary topic ban. The recurring use of problematic language over the past decade, throughout the past few months and even in this very discussion, suggests the need for a reset, focusing on positive contributions elsewhere. I believe this would improve the current state of this topic area, which, at the moment, suffers from significant battleground behavior and neutrality issues. ABHammad ( talk) 07:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by ArkonCan the admins maybe stop dragging their feet and do something here? It's almost enabling at this point. Arkon ( talk) 17:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by UnbanditoI felt that I should point out that JDiala has made significant, enduring contributions on the mainspace, particularly at Israel-Hamas war, that have made the article better as a whole. Their edits on that page remain 93% un-reverted. Whatever other issues exist with their conduct, I don't think it could be said that JDiala is here only to argue, or use Wikipedia as a battleground or forum. They are clearly invested in the project, and perhaps some leniency is justified on those grounds. Unbandito ( talk) 01:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Result concerning JDiala
|
Skitash and Stephan rostie are reminded to follow 1RR, to bring up possible violations at the editor's talk page to allow for self-reversion, to self-revert when in violation, and generally not to edit war. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 11:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Skitash
Skitash reverted me at two different times in the same contentious topic article at two different unrelated sections, one in the lead and the other in another section. After his first revert i added a new content in unrelated section in the same article but he reverted me for the second time. After each of them i opened a talk section regarding his reverts, he didn’t reply in the to the first talk section about his own revert despite mentioning him, in the second talks section about his second revert i notified him about his 1RR violation following his second revert where he replied but seemingly ignored what i said about the 1RR violation.
Discussion concerning SkitashStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Skitash@ ScottishFinnishRadish I didn't realize initially that I had violated the rule, and I also seem to have overlooked the part in Stephan rostie's message that mentioned a potential WP:1RR violation. I could self-revert if that solves the issue, but I'm uncertain whether this is necessary, considering that this edit dispute took place over 48 hours ago. Could you please clarify if the rule still applies in this case? Skitash ( talk) 19:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by SelfstudierSkitash seemingly not aware so posted notice. OK, so not officially aware and no opportunity on users talk for self revert, so free pass this time. Complainant, ensure awareness and allow for self revert before filing future complaints. Selfstudier ( talk) 17:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by BilledMammalNote that both parties violated WP:1RR here. Stephan rostie violated it with:
Skitash is already documented. BilledMammal ( talk) 18:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Skitash
|
Pofka's indefinite TBAN is narrowed to articles and edits about the Holocaust in Lithuania, broadly construed. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 14:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial 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).
Statement by PofkaHello, I was topic banned from Lithuania in early January 2024 (see:
HERE) due to my expressed opinion in a discussion (see:
HERE) in which I stated that
the Holocaust in Lithuania was executed by Nazis (who
occupied Lithuania) and Lithuanian Nazi collaborators, but not by the State of
Lithuania, which at the time was occupied by Nazis. The request to sanction me (see:
HERE) did not include any of mine changes in English Wikipedia's articles, so I was sanctioned purely for expressing my opinion there, but not for
POV pushing in any articles. Moreover, I was never before sanctioned for Holocaust-related changes in articles/discussions and as far as I remember I was not even reported for that during over 13 years of participation in Wikipedia before this. I was previously sanctioned quite long time ago for wrongly describing other editors mass removal of content from articles as "vandalism" (and reverting it) and for personal attacks against a user with whom I did not agree in topics not related with the Holocaust (I still have active interaction ban with that user, which I did not violate). For contributing exceptionally high-quality content to the English Wikipedia about Lithuania (see examples:
HERE) I was
recognized in 2022 as one of only two best editors in "Lithuania" topic (see:
HERE, the other identically recognized editor is sysop Renata3). Over 6 months had already passed after this sanction was applied to me and I did not violate it. However, my aim in English Wikipedia always was to contribute high-quality content about Lithuania and with this broadly construed sanction active I simply cannot contribute anything to English Wikipedia in a field where I have exceptional knowledge of information and sources (due to my extensive capability to research
Lithuanian language sources, etc.), so for me this sanction is equal to a total block in English Wikipedia and I believe that it is too strict given all the circumstances. Sadly, with this broadly construed sanction in Lithuania's topic active I plan to quit Wikipedia completely. Consequently, I appeal this sanction and request to reconsider it and to allow me to again contribute exceptionally high-quality content about Lithuania. I would like to stress that I never had plans to POV push malicious content about the Holocaust in Lithuania and I fully condemn horrific crimes which were committed against Jewish people in Lithuania (including those that were committed by Lithuanian nationality representatives). If Barkeep49 and other participants of this request procedure think that I am not trustworthy enough to edit articles related with the Holocaust in Lithuania, I request to at least narrow this broadly construed sanction to "anything related with the Holocaust in Lithuania" because per report this imposed sanction is not associated with other Lithuania-related topics (e.g. Lithuanian sports, culture, etc.). -- Pofka ( talk) 12:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by Barkeep49Just noting that this sanction was placed by me, acting on behalf of ArbCom acting as its own AE. As such I think it can be appealed and considered as any other AE placed topic ban would be. A major factor here was what had occurred after a previous topic ban was lifted. Beyond that while I'm happy to answer questions, I'll leave it to uninvolved administrators to consider the appeal. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by PofkaStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MKW100Pofka used contribute nearly endless HIGH QUALITY EDITS in the Lithuania topic and was OFFICIALLY RECOCGNIZED as a FINEST EDITOR in this topic. Banning him from the same is a contradiction. Since 99% of his overall edits happened to be in the Lithuania topic, of course this is the topic where any type of conflict could appear at all. Banning him from his topic of expertise equals like a global perma ban to him. Obviously, this punishment is way too harsh, and his finest editor status was not considered in the first discussion. ( see) In this almost automatic process, nobody defended pofka's position in the first discussion. I hope we can get a different result this time. MKW100 ( talk) 19:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC) Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)Result of the appeal by Pofka
|
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.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
Violated 1RR at:
mind 1RR in the ARBPIA topic area, and remedy any violations as soon as possible when they are pointed out
pass judgementwhen you removed the requests to self-revert? BilledMammal ( talk) 16:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
manually reverse other editors' actionsby (among other things) removing clarification that the Gaza Health Ministry is controlled by Hamas (
Hamas-run Gazan Health Ministry→
Gazan Health Ministry,
Hamas Health Ministry→
Health Ministry)
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.
The edits billedmammal linked are not reversions, they are merely edits made to the articles. He even went scrolling back two weeks into my edit history to bring up old and already resolved actions. If you look at my edit history you will see I'm clearly not engaged in edit warring on any of the articles he linked.
Ultimately I think everybody's time would be better served by making actual contributions to Wikipedia, instead of wasting everybody's time with petty punitive arbitration. When BilledMammal brought up the reversions I'd made at Tel al-Sultan massacre, e.g., it contributed nothing to the project and instead resulted in me being forced to move the article back to the wrong title in the middle of a move discussion, creating havoc in the talk page for everyone involved, when instead we could have just moved on and continued to do useful things for the project. Dylanvt ( talk) 14:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Putin's government passed law X [ref1], and Editor B goes in many edits later and changes it to
The Russian government passed law X [ref1]... That's really considered a revert? Because that's what the above edit was. Dylanvt ( talk) 19:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
there's a pretty significant difference between the two, same as attributing something to Putin rather than Russia, or Biden rather than the USNo there's very much not a significant difference. Hamas is a political party. Putin and Biden are leaders of political parties. Even if you think that difference is significant, I can just give an even more comparable example:
According to the United Russia-run government media officebeing changed to
According to the Russian government media office. There's no way it can be argued that that change is a "revert". If it were, then every edit would be a revert. Dylanvt ( talk) 20:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Posting up here because I suppose I'm involved - I initially restored the edit which Dylanvt is now accused of edit-warring over at Genocide of Indigenous peoples. I don't think any admin did advise them to self-revert; if BilledMammal is referring to my comments on the edit war I said that I was ignoring it and had started an RFC instead but I didn't tell anyone to do anything; the page was then full-protected by PhilKnight.
In looking for that warning I went to Dylanvt's talk page and reviewed this warning and discussion, which was regarding the edits listed above on Tel al-Sultan massacre, in which BilledMammal and ScottishFinnishRadish demanded that Dylanvt self-revert a page move which was a 1RR violation. It is accurate to say that Dylanvt refused, but that also grossly oversimplifies the situation: Dylanvt had good reason to refuse, as there was an ongoing discussion about the move and at least one other editor ( Vanilla Wizard) objected to reverting because of the ongoing discussion. As Dylanvt tried to explain, a separate move review had directed that the article be kept at that title pending the result of the ongoing discussion, and had Dylanvt reverted their move someone else would just have to move it back per WP:TITLECHANGES. Eventually, after more IDHT and bullying from BM and SFR, Dylanvt did revert their move, which as predicted created a technical mess which had to be reverted again by a different administrator, who cited the exact rationale Dylanvt had been trying to explain the whole time. It was all a bureaucratic waste of everyone's time because two experienced editors care more about enforcing one particular rule because "it's teh rulez" rather than use some discretion and common sense (we have WP:IAR for a reason).
I see that trend repeating in the report here. BilledMammal has gone out of their way to classify these edits as "reverts" when, as Dylanvt also has tried to explain, they are edits in the course of constructing a rapidly developing article being edited by many editors at the same time, and happen to have changed information added by someone else previously. By that overly-broad definition, nearly every edit to these articles since their creation is a revert; of course they are not, this is just the normal editorial process. The 1RR rule is meant to limit disruption; these edits were decidedly not disruptive. The rule is certainly not meant to be a "gotcha!" rule whereby any two edits that look superficially similar can be used to eject an editor from a topic, nor is it meant to be used as a tool for harassment as seems to be happening here.
The edit war on Genocide of Indigenous peoples was actually a revert war (in that case Dylanvt was intentionally undoing a previous edit, as was I) but that situation was dealt with. We can waste more time bureaucratically arguing over whether or not the highlighted edits to the other pages are reverts to the extent that the policy is violated (they aren't) or we could skip all that and simply acknowledge that no disruption has occurred. In fact the situation would be greatly improved overall if BilledMammal were sanctioned against anything to do with 1RR enforcement in this topic. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 15:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
A, B, and C.and in a separate section,
D, E, and F.. Editor X changes the first bit to
A., editor Y reverts, editor X restores their version, then both editors leave the section saying
A.and move to the talk page to discuss. Then later the same day, editor Q changes the second part to
D.and editor Y reverts. Editor Y has reverted twice in the same day, though each is unrelated to the other. Now is editor Y in violation of 1RR? Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 18:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
A.and have discussed their compromise on the talk page, run a quick straw poll in which 100 editors support the compromise (it's the fastest and most well attended straw poll in the history of Wikipedia), and following an experienced and respected neutral observer closing the discussion as obvious consensus for the edit, editor Y implements the compromise; this all happens within 22 hours. For how long should editor Y, the monster, be blocked for this flagrant violation of the letter of 1RR? Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 18:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I know content is not the thing here but this nonsense with the GHM needs to be resolved once for all. Afaik, across various discussions at articles and at noticeboards, it has been resolved and the consensus is that the GHM is reliable and editors that persist in adding "Hamas run" in front of that are only intending to provoke/cast doubt on that assessment, attribution to GHM is all that is needed, nothing more. So on the behavioral front, while in general it would be better to ignore the provocation and start a talk page discussion, I do sympathize with removing the unnecessary. Selfstudier ( talk) 17:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Administrators wishing to dismiss an enforcement request should act cautiously and be especially mindful that their actions do not give the impression that they are second-guessing the Arbitration Committee or obstructing the enforcement of their decisions.The Arbitration Committee placed the topic area under blanket 1RR. Arbitration enforcement isn't the place to say, "sure, it's a 1RR breach but it's not very bad so meh." The threshold for not sanctioning a violation is
the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that exceptional circumstances are present, which would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate.The said I haven't taken the time to review these specific allegations of a violation, although I'll try to get to that soon as to avoid another multi-week clusterfuck. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The fact that I think the actual definition of a revert is stupid has no bearing on both those edits actually being reverts. I do, however, know that there is a great deal of confusion about this whole situation about what qualifies as a revert. (And I acknowledge that I may actually have this wrong, that's how screwy things are with this whole definition of revert), that is why I suggested a gentleman's agreement back in (I think) December to request a self-revert on user talk pages, and to revert your own reported 1RR violations. Better safe than sorry, it's easy to make mistakes on fast moving articles, and it can be confusing. Unfortunately the BATTLEGROUND tendencies make this difficult because it's normally someone on "the other side" requesting a revert and how dare they! ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
A, B, and C. Editor X changes it to just
A. Editor Y reverts to
A, B, and C. Editor X reverts to
Awith the edit summary
C isn't true. Editor Y then changes it to
A and Bwith the edit summary
okay, we'll leave out C, but restoring B which no one disagrees with. All this happens within the space of a day. Has Y violated 1RR, and if she technically has, would other admins feel the need to do anything about it? Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
critics often argue that bright-line rules are overly simplistic and can lead to harsh and unjust results. And here the "bright-line" rule is illusory in any event; the current discussion on your talkpage reflects several ways in which our definition of "revert" remains ambiguous even after 20-plus years.
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.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
Well isn't this ironic.
Violated 1RR at:
2024 Nuseirat rescue operation
Nuseirat refugee camp massacre
KronosAlight also has a history of making incendiary, belligerent, aspersive, and off-topic comments on talk pages.
here.
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.
None of these are 'reverts'. I removed your editorialising and filled out citation data in existing citations, and added new ones.
Editing an existing page, clarifying what the sources cited actually say, is not a revert and there is therefore nothing to answer for here.
You can avoid this problem in future by better complying with NPOV and related Wikipedia rules on editorialisation, bias, and editing wars.
By way of example, in the Al-Sardi school attack article, the complainant initially used the infobox: civilian attack, has repeatedly sought to editorialise it and similar articles, nor did their version include even one mention of the IDF's official statements in which they claimed to have identified at least 9 terrorists killed in the strike. One needn't take them at their word - their claims should be couched as just that, a claim, that cannot be independently verified. But to omit any mention of this? And to seek to revert edits clarifying that the Gaza Health Ministry are Hamas-run (without removing any of their claims) and make requests that articles about strikes be renamed as "massacres", suggests that this is simply a vexatious complaint by a user engaged in a political campaign with Wikipedia's neutrality the victim.
Wikipedia is not a place for you to wage political wars, it's a neutral space for information.
To be honest I wasn’t familiar with the 1RR before this complaint, I don’t usually edit articles about recent events. The policy seems a bit odd to me, just seems to let trolls off the hook, but yeah, I obviously didn’t comply with that rule. I’m happy to own that and ensure going forwards that my edits respect it. KronosAlight ( talk) 14:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Kronos, going to the talk page. If an editor is routinely engaged in POV pushing and source distortion then that becomes a behavioral issue that can be addressed here, but it doesn't justify violating 1RR - and violating 1RR to address such issues can simply mean that you are sanctioned, rather than the editor engaging in POV pushing and source distortion.
I strongly encourage you to self-revert your violations now. BilledMammal ( talk) 14:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
The 1R here is a slamdunk so no comment on that, the little BM/Kronos tete a tete above looks like a resolution. However I will just note that we are once again dealing with this GHM nonsense just as in the other complaint. I am convinced these edits are simply intended to provoke and kudos to complainant for refusing to be provoked this time. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
"None of these are 'reverts'. I removed your editorialising"- which is effectively saying "I reverted your edit, but it doesn't count as a revert because I was reverting something which I think is wrong") are merely supporting evidence of this. Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
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.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
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.
i am aware of this, and have nothing to say. ltb d l ( talk) 08:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
This sort of conduct in a heated and contentious area is highly unproductive and should be appropriately sanctioned. FortunateSons ( talk) 08:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm concerned that this was an out of the blue uncivil action. If we had been debating or had a long interaction history and they made this claim, well that could just be frustration or opinion built up over time. However, when an account that per the interaction analyzer, I've never interacted with, starts throwing out comments like that, it makes me wonder why they needed a clean start and if granting it was appropriate. Certainly the replies here suggest they don't see an issue with the actions. I think some sort of action should be taken (warning, block, etc) so if this uncivil behavior continues other editors can see the behavior is part of a pattern. Springee ( talk) 11:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Because I participated in the RfC where the comments were made, I'm going to write here rather than in the section for uninvolved admins below.
This is an extremely clear case of a personal attack directed at an editor, and the behavior that taunts the personally attacked editor is... bizarre.
I agree with SFR that this is unacceptable, but I'd only recommend a TBAN if there is some broader issue than this one incident, and I'm just not seeing those diffs here. If this is merely a personal attack/casting aspersions against Springee, perhaps a one-way I-ban or a block would be better than a TBAN. (If there were an apology, an acknowledgement that what they did was grossly out of line with WP:CIVIL, and they struck the personal attacks, I might even just recommend a logged warning for civility in the two topic areas. But I just don't see any remorse, nor evidence proffered that the allegations made by respondent against Springee are in any way substantiated, so I do think that something more restrictive is warranted.) — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
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.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
Editor has reverted to re-include material at Hunter Biden in violation of active arbitration remedies and then refused to self-revert when advised of their transgression.
TarnishedPath
talk 14:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
@
Riposte97 the very fact that I edited to remove your change demonstrates that there was no consensus for your change. Other editors editing about other things, regardless the location in the article, does not demonstrate consensus for your change. The fact is that no one has discussed that specific sentence in talk, so your claim of consensus is completely without merit.
The easiest thing would have been for you to remedy your violation of active arbitration remedies, by self-reverting, when I raised your conduct on your user talk. However you have refused to remedy your violation from the point when I raised it until the present time. So here we are and you are still refusing to remedy your violation of active arbitration remedies.
Ps, I am also on a mobile device as I am away from my home for at least another week. That's no reason for this discussion to stall or for you not to do the correct thing and remedy your violation by self-reverting.
TarnishedPath
talk 02:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
@
ScottishFinnishRadish please note that as of
Special:Diff/1228842988 Riposte97‘s ability to self-revert has disappeared. They were provided the opportunity to self-revert a clear violation, they refused and decided to engage in arguments which had no merit.
TarnishedPath
talk 15:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
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.
Good morning,
I maintain that my revert restored consensus. As pointed out above, the sentence in question was inserted on 10 June UTC. A little over three days passed, before the submitter removed it. In that time, the page was edited dozens of times, and the lead extensively discussed on the talk page. I believed, and still do, that the circumstances illustrate consensus for the sentence.
If reasonable minds differ, I’d submit the easiest thing to do would be to raise the substance of any objection on the article talk page, rather than go straight to ANI.
Please note I am subject to the disadvantages of editing on mobile until I get home from work this evening.
Thanks.
@
Riposte97: To help advance this to a conclusion, could you please elaborate on your statement, I have now read and understood the policy
?
SPECIFICO
talk 21:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Riposte. While that is good practice, it is not why you were reported here. SPECIFICO talk 02:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
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.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
User Konanen is civilly pushing a point of view, promoting false neutrality, and editing tendentiously on the alternative medicine topic Reiki.
Konanen opened the NPOVN discussion linked above, in parallel to a discussion already occurring on the article's talk page, with a request to remove the term "quackery" because they personally found it offensive, and to omit "pseudoscience" because of the term being redundant due to its occurrence in a linked article. Several editors objected, and there was some discussion which led to copyediting some repetitive occurrences of "pseudoscience" and improving the attribution of "quackery", but no consensus is evident for either term's removal. The discussion basically concluded on 30 May, other than one editor who on 5 June added their own biased tally of votes supporting their position and began removing all instances describing the practice as pseudoscience from the article, as well as a large criticism section; the other editor was topic-banned in a different thread here.
In the course of reverting the topic-banned user's disruptive edits, user Valjean restored an earlier revision and inadvertently removed the {{ npov}} banner on 13 June. Konanen demanded that the banner be restored, referring to the false consensus and subsequent disruptive editing of the topic-banned user as evidence of ongoing discussion. When Valjean and Tgeorgescu responded essentially that two editors do not a consensus make, Konanen started the ANI thread reporting both users for personal attacks.
At ANI, several users both involved and not observed that Konanen is pushing the same POV as the topic-banned user, and expressed frustration over Konanen's insistence on displaying the neutrality banner. Several editors commented that the NPOVN discussion was concluded (e.g. [25], [26]), that the tag should be removed ( [27], [28]), and that Konanen should drop the issue (e.g. [29], [30], [31], [32]), with many already suggesting a topic ban. Valjean did restore the banner some time later in an effort to move on.
Another editor then invited Konanen to identify the issue in a new talk page section. Konanen insisted that they didn't need to provide an explanation for the banner, and implied that the banner should remain until they were satisfied with the NPOVN discussion's outcome. I attempted to explain that cleanup tags are not meant to be used in this way and, referring to the opinion of ANI that the discussion was concluded, removed the banner again, suggesting that they should re-add it themselves only if they had another issue to discuss. Konanen still refuses to accept this, and this morning demanded that I self-revert or cite policy supporting the removal, which is blatant wikilawyering, and posted a new tally of votes at NPOVN which serves no purpose other than to tendentiously relitigate a discussion result they do not agree with.
I therefore propose that they be banned from the topic. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 13:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
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.
Interesting to find myself here when all I have done is to advocate for discussion and transparency (by way of a POV tag) about said discussion pertaining to a matter of NPOV.
First of all, I object to the submitter’s falsehoods re two editors do not a consensus make
, as I will be showing further below, the tbanned editor and I were not the only ones who had objections to the article’s lead as it stood. I do not agree with their hasty edits, but that is not the issue at hand.
I reject the accusation of tendentious editing. Precisely because I have an opinion on the subject matter, and because I do not think I could do a better job than previous editors in fixing the perceived POV issues, have I not dared edit the article in question except for adding the POV tag. If talking about the content of an article, and taking the matter to NPOV/N for wider input is considered tendentious editing, then I apologise ― I was not aware that its definition had such a wide scope.
Valjean restored an early version, citing accidental removal (
[33]), but they were terse and bordered on personal attacks when I asked them to restore, hence the decision to take the matter to ANI, instead of edit warring over the issue (I hesitate to revert reverts
, as stated elsewhere).
The discussion on NPOV/N began on the 29th of May ( [34]), so alleging that discussion concluded on the 30th of May is disingenuous when there has been some activity since ( [35] [36] [37]).
I am partially to blame for the lull in activity between the 6th and 13th of June, but that should not stand in the way of the discussion’s legitimacy, considering that it has continued just fine without my input ( [38] [39]) which is further proof that the matter was not laid to rest, and there was no consensus reached that article is NPOV, wherefore there were no grounds for the removal of the POV tag (which Valjean had agreed to reinstate yesterday during the ANI procedure, but above submitter saw fit to remove again, even though the matter had not concluded on NPOV/N nor on the article’s talk page, see diffs below).
All that being said, since yesterday, there has been further opining about the article’s NPOV on its talk page as well as the noticeboard following Valjean’s substantial changes to the lead and my creating a summary of the discussion so far for a better overview ( [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]). In my humble opinion, we have come to a good arrangement as to the lead. I am not interested in keeping the POV tag for the tag’s sake, and I think a good discussion has given way to an acceptable compromise less than an hour ago ( [45]). I consider the matter satisfactorily discussed and remedied, and see no need for the POV tag to be restored at this time. Cheers, – Konanen ( talk) 17:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I believe that I may be the other user referred to by Ivanvector. I opened the talkpage section for the tag to give Konanen a chance (and any other editors, for that matter) to actually clearly state what NPOV issue was so prevalent in the article to merit a tag on the whole article. This way other editors could begin the process of improving any issues. Konanen replied that they do not agree that there needs to be any qualified raison d’être of the POV tag
, even though the tag itself says Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page
which is what I was attempting to begin. Regardless, a discussion over one word repeated maybe a couple times is not a discussion about the POV of the article as a whole that merits a NPOV tag. Rather than engage with their concerns on the talkpage constructively, they've continued trying to discuss at the NPOV/N. Seemingly now that Ivanvector has opened this thread, they've now backed off and said they have "no further problems" even though they were arguing to hide "pseudoscience" from being used in the article at all only a couple days prior.
Their behavior in the discussions leaves a lot to be desired - and whether they are well-intentioned or not, they've displayed their inability to constructively contribute to articles about pseudoscientific "medical treatments" on Wikipedia. I do not believe that a topic ban from all of medicine is merited necessarily, but a topic ban wider than reiki for sure. They started the discussion at NPOVN based on them finding the term pseudoscience "objectionable", and it is clear that early on they were on a crusade to legitimize reiki as scientifically sound and trusted. That alone should be enough evidence that they cannot contribute constructively to alternative medicine topics on Wikipedia, since they have admitted since the start that their personal objection is more important than the sources and discussion. A topic ban from alternative medicine need not be permanent, but the editor (who is still relatively new) should display their ability to have constructive and cooperative dialogue about article content before they should be allowed into the broader area again after this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 01:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
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.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
Facilitated communication has a
Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism tag on the talk page and the first source is
Skeptical Inquirer, and many other sources in the article are related to skepticism. There was also a minor BLPvio in the lead, linking
a former NFL player as the 33-year-old African-American man with severe mental disabilities who cannot speak, has cerebral palsy, and is unable to stand independently or accurately direct movements of his body
. The wikilink to
Anna Stubblefield is a redirect to a section of the
Facilitated communication article. These are their first edits upon return from a block for topic ban violations. My previous filing
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive331#Rp2006 contains a list with many of the warnings they were given before their recent block.
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.