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:
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
---|---|---|---|
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland | Motion | ( orig. case) | 21 June 2024 |
Amendment request: Extended confirmed restriction | none | none | 25 July 2024 |
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) | none | none | 26 July 2024 |
Motion name | Date posted |
---|---|
Historical elections | 21 July 2024 |
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 to case requests. 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.
|
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:
Initiated by My very best wishes at 23:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
My editing restrictions were based on the findings of fact about my comments during the arbitration. This FoF tells about two issues.
The topic ban always struck me as one that shouldn't have happened. There simply wasn't anything in evidence that MVBW had problems in the topic area; and topic-bans are meant to be preventative, not punitive. I can understand why it happened (ArbCom needs to maintain decorum during cases and has a limited toolbox to enforce that) but if they felt something was necessary, just the interaction ban, ejecting MVBW from that specific case during the case, or at most restrictions on participation in future ArbCom cases where MVBW isn't a party would have made more sense, since those were the actual issues it was supposed to resolve. Beyond this specific instance, I feel that ArbCom might want to consider how they'll enforce decorum in cases in the future and what sort of sanctions someone can / ought to get for issues that are solely confined to the case pages itself like this - partially it feels like the topic ban happened because there wasn't a clear precedent of what to do, so they just tossed MVBW into the bin of the same sanctions they were leveling at everyone else even if it didn't make sense. Possibly more willingness to eject unhelpful third parties from specific cases while the case is in progress could be helpful. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Note that My very best wishes is also subject to an overlapping AE topic ban (
WP:AELOG/2023#Eastern Europe: My very best wishes is topic-banned from the areas of World War II in Eastern Europe and the history of Jews in Eastern Europe, and is warned that further disruption may lead to a topic ban from the whole Eastern Europe topic area, without further warning. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she
)
* Pppery *
it has begun...
15:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Acknowledging courtesy ping. To nitpick procedurally, the TBAN I enacted was an AE-consensus sanction, not an individual one. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive319 § My very best wishes. Courtesy pings to @ ScottishFinnishRadish, Courcelles, Valereee, Seraphimblade, and Guerillero, who participated in the admin discussion there. I personally have no opinion on whether to lift the sanction. -- Tamzin[ cetacean needed ( they|xe) 22:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I remain of the opinion that MVBW should not be under an iban. Would someone kindly be able to explain to me what preventative purpose it is serving? Any "don't do this again" message (both to MVBW and people in the future who might consider disruptively defending someone at ArbCom) has surely been received at this point, so I don't see it remaining serving as a further deterrent. House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 23:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
My very best wishes' has minimized his history with Piotrus and Volunter Marek.
My very best wishes (then known as User:Biophys) cooperated off wiki with Piotrus and Volunteer Marek (then known as User:radeksz) in order to influence articles' contents and to get opposing editors sanctioned. Details are available at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list. The case resulted in Eastern Europe's listing as a contentious topic for Arbitration enforcement.
TFD ( talk) 17:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Elinruby, I did not say that MVBW's involvement in the Eastern European Mailing List (EEML) should affect the current application. I said that MVBW "has minimized his history with Piotrus and Volunter Marek." He wrote above, "I never met them in "real life", but I interacted with them on many pages in various subject areas." No one asked him to bring up his previous relationship, but if he does, it should be the whole truth. TFD ( talk) 20:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Elinruby, there is no reason I should disclose my interactions with you since it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.
MYBW wrote, "I never met them in "real life", but I interacted with them on many pages in various subject areas." Do you think that is a fair and accurate reflection of their previous interactions?
My advice to you and to myself is to let the administrators decide what signficance if any it has.
TFD ( talk) 23:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
I want to say that MVBW is an invaluable contributor, particularly when it comes to Russia and Russians. I deeply regretted losing contact with him because of the topic ban, given that I was still trying to straighten out the pages about collaboration with Nazi Germany and was talking to Polish editors about that.
I was a party to the Holocaust in Poland Arbcom case. as best I can tell for much the same reasons as MVBW; we were editing in the topic area of the war in Ukraine at the same time as VM and Gitz6666. I protested the topic ban at the time. MVBW is interested in the war in Ukraine, and not Poland. However the history of the region is such that part of Ukraine was once part of Poland (to vastly oversimplify) and I completely understand both that it would be difficult to respect a topic ban and that it would be necessary to break ties with me because of it.
If it is relevant to anyone's thinking I strongly support removing this topic ban. I do not think the interaction ban is necessary either; he seems pretty serious about addressing the Committee's concerns. Elinruby ( talk) 18:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
EEML is relevent and "I never met them in "real life", but I interacted with them on many pages in various subject areas." appears to be misleading at best and a lie by omission at worst. EEML is definitely relevent here, if MVBW doesn't want to speak about it thats fine but their refusal to address the relationship in a forthright and honest manner has to count agaisnt them. If they can't be honest about their connections I have no faith that those connections aren't going to continue influencing their behavior going forward. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:19, 23 July 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.
Remedy 5.1 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic ban on My very best wishes) is repealed. Remedy 5.2 (the 1-way interaction ban) remains in effect.
For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 2 arbitrators abstaining, 4 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) are repealed.
For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.
My very best wishes' topic ban from World War II in Eastern Europe and the history of Jews in Eastern Europe, imposed under the Eastern Europe contentious topic procedures, is repealed.
For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Initiated by 142.113.140.146 at 09:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I
concur RMs are ERs.
WP:Edit requests are requests for edits to be made to a page where editors cannot or should not make the proposed edits themselves
. This social concept is independent of technical details of which template is used. A RM requests to edit the title. An AfD requests an edit to blank the page or replace its contents with a redirect.
A 2023 "clarifying" motion actually repealed some other clarifying language. This may "contain a loophole". A repeal of a RM prohibition clause is taken to be license to participate in such RMs.
We need to settle this once and for all. Request 1 approves, while request 2 forbids (along with AfDs), edits to RMs.
TLDR
WP:BANEX
|
---|
|
obtain consensus first. Consensus forming discussions can be a necessary component of edit requests and some level of consensus (between submitter and the processor of any successful request) is needed to process any edit request. 122141510 ( talk) 15:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
For those limited by time I believe my statement is effectively expounding on what I already said.
I don't buy the idea that a move request should not be considered as a type of edit request. Any change to an article is an edit. The idea there's a difference between between a WP:RM and a WP:ER is an argument based on bureaucratic pedantics than on shared reality. While there may be practical reasons for the bureaucratic decision to not consider an RM a type of ER, editors should always refuse to accept as immutable reality any status quo which begs credulity to a wider audience. User:ScottishFinnishRadish's "thems the breaks" rationale comments were effectively the opposite, which is why I expressed frustration in our exchange. (I want to make it clear that I have no animus towards ScottishFinnishRadish. I appreciate that no one seems to have been left with an impression of, or suggested, otherwise.)
Regarding the fact I mentioned systemic bias, I'm accusing this interpretation of WP:ECR of introducing unintentional systemic bias, in at least two ways;
The policies as you are interpreting them can be taken as a bureaucratic manoeuvre by which a minority of editors can determine the topic of any contentious article – sure, the protection will eventually end, but not without shifting the WP:ONUS onto those who prefer a different title to build consensus, under more difficult conditions as consensus must be achieved from a much wider pool of editors.I am not sure I can expand on this while remaining relatively succinct – this is about as concise as I can get here, as I think the implications of this are wide-ranging and existential for Wikipedia as a project.
I'd like to note that at time of posting my reverted contribution is still the only non-comment contribution which has been made to the RM in question [9]. This can be taken any number of ways, of course, but I don't mean to suggest "this specific article doesn't merit ECR in the first place" so much as it's not obvious to me what the policy is intending to guard against here. I do not see any benefit to the interpretation of ECR as enforced by ScottishFinnishRadish, and have outlined in broad strokes what I believe are the drawbacks. 122141510 ( talk) 22:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Everyone is supercool with an uninvolved IP opening a request for clarification in violation of ARBECR? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 12:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussionsthat is directly related to ARBPIA. This is your court so your rules, but this looks related to ARBPIA to me. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 14:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
RMs are not edit requests as they usually require consensus, something that is especially true for contentious topics (WP:EDITXY is pretty clear on this and the fact that edit requests shouldn't be used to attract attention to a post, even in the name of finding consensus). M.Bitton ( talk) 09:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
It used to be that consensus forming discussions (AfD, RFC, RM etcetera) were specifically listed out and excluded but that was amended in favor of the current restriction to straightforward edit requests a la WP:EDITXY. Consensus forming discussions are self evidently not edit requests. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I initially intended to warn the IP editor about ARBPIA, but then realised that the subject requires discussion anyway, and so their input is indeed constructive and should be appreciated. I wouldn't be comfortable with shutting the discussion now for formal reasons, as it's not really about PIA but about ECR, and it needs to be had.
The purpose of ECR is to let experienced editors work on controversial articles in relative peace by minimising disruption caused by inexperienced editors, socks, SPAs, etc. The idea is only to let them make a simple suggestion ("Change X to Y" per sources) where the response would be positive (Yes, done) or negative (No, not done). It was not the idea to let them start lengthy discussions on whether they like article titles or not. I'm all for making it absolutely clear that move requests, deletion requests, merge requests, etc., are disallowed under ARBECR. — kashmīrī TALK 15:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Wide-ranging discussions involving heated debates between users are, quite bluntly, entirely separate from a simple "please change this" edit request - I think it's fairly clear that RMs are not mere edit requests, and should be subject to the same ECR protection as virtually everything else in the area.
There's already been enough off-wiki coordination/pressure/etc from various groups relating to the ARBPIA area. The last thing any of us want is a loophole allowing brand-new SPAs, POV-warriors, and/or sock farms from Twitter, Reddit, news comment sections, and so on to flood the topic area with even more WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct than it already has. The Kip ( contribs) 15:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
While initiating RM discussions are not "please change X to Y (because Z)" edit requests, such discussions do not encompass all requests to change the title of a page. In other words, there should be no prohibition on a non-EC editor making a uncontroversial request to move a page. For example if the current title contains a typo or has become outdated or ambiguous. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
122141510, for interest, I don't find your 'introducing unintentional systemic bias' #1 argument very compelling. Enforcement of ECR is a stochastic process. It relies on other stochastic processes. There is a lot of randomness in there in terms of editors, their watchlists, their editing times, their alertness and personal biases etc. It doesn't seem like the kind of system that can easily produce systematic bias and I have not seen any evidence that it is doing that. The notion that ECR enforcement by an individual is partly a function of the individual's bias is speculation. It's an empirical question and I don't think there is currently an evidence-based reason to give it much credence. But if we assume it's true, then a solution is to increase the population size of the people actively enforcing ECR. Sean.hoyland ( talk) 08:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
122141510, as for argument #2, this argument doesn't appear to have a dependency on ECR. It seems more like a description of how Wikipedia works for everyone. Articles and content acquire a kind of inertial mass over time. A single extendedconfirmed editor may create a new article with a title that includes a biased or contentious word. There is no real barrier or cost for this. You see it a lot in the PIA topic area. The new article instantly acquires a kind of inertial mass as soon as the editor hits save. After that, it takes work to move it or change its state. Editors choose how much energy they are willing to expend on the effort. It isn't easier for some and harder for others to become extendedconfirmed or change an article. Everyone is in the same boat. Sean.hoyland ( talk) 10:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I have to say that it is not obvious to me, now that we have several years of data and experience that post-dates the imposition of ECR, whether non-extendedconfirmed users should be able to do anything at all, including submitting edit requests, in contentious topic areas with ECR restrictions. Do the benefits sufficiently outweigh the costs? I have no idea. Constructive edit requests certainly exist. It seems like the kind of question that probably has an answer to be found somewhere in the data, and it would be useful to know the answer. It would be interesting to see how many edit requests are successful, how many are declined, how many talk page comments are simply reverted, how often people search for ways to tunnel through the EC barrier, often it seems because getting to the other side is mission critical for them etc. Sean.hoyland ( talk) 16:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
ScottishFinnishRadish, only ~100+ ECR reverts for me. ~700+ for Selfstudier. Lots of noise from new users, not so much signal it seems. I do wonder sometimes what would happen if all articles (or maybe half for an A/B test) with "ArbCom_Arab-Israeli_enforcement" or "Contentious_topics/Arab-Israeli_talk_notice" templates (without relatedcontent=yes) were extendedconfirmed protected, including the talk pages, and edit requests from non-EC editors were either not allowed or had to go through Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit. It's probably not a great situation when I find myself wondering whether the very experienced sockpuppets of topic banned users my computer suggests are there, might actually be an asset compared to all the noise. Sean.hoyland ( talk) 17:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Zero0000, it's true that quite a few edit-requests are perfectly reasonable and involve correction of minor errors. What I have observed is that, in practice, people do not revert corrections of minor errors by IPs and non-extendedconfirmed editors even when they make the change themselves. They get a pass, another somewhat complicated and subjective aspect of the current system. Anyway, to clarify, I'm not proposing anything specific because I have no idea how best to achieve what ECR is supposed to achieve. But being in a position to make evidence-based decisions about restrictions might help. As for "it would not reduce the number of non-edit-requests that should be reverted", I'm biased towards simple technical solutions with no subjectivity or wiggle room, so in my mind, a ban on talk page edit-requests or a centralization of edit requests would need to be accompanied by talk pages being extendedconfirmed protected. Sean.hoyland ( talk) 03:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with a non-EC adding an edit-request like "Fix the bad spelling in the title". However, an RM is a formal process to determine consensus on the result of a move proposal. The request and the resulting consensus are two different things. In addition, disruption in formal processes is more damaging than ordinary discussion. For these reasons, the ban on non-EC participation in RMs should remain. Zero talk 09:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Quite a few edit-requests are perfectly reasonable and involve correction of minor errors. The proposal to ban edit-requests altogether would be counterproductive. Not only would it mean that non-EC editors have no legal way to notify us of such errors, but it would not reduce the number of non-edit-requests that should be reverted. Zero talk 02:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
The exceptions to limited bans cover this clarification request ("addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself" [emphasis in original]; also "asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban"). If we're going to start telling new users that they're not even allowed to ask if they're allowed to ask whether or not they're allowed to edit, then let's just archive WP:ANYONE now and acknowledge that it was good almost-quarter-century run of having principles.
As for the actual clarification request: I would like to suggest that it's not violating the restriction for a non-EC editor to request a move and explain their rationale, as it's not really functionally different from making an edit request with a rationale, at least up to the point that the requester publishes the request. However, once they have made the request then ARBECR dictates that they cannot participate in any subsequent discussion, and of course they cannot add comments to requested moves started by other editors. This is meant to be a comment on how the restriction is worded, not whether or not it's a sensible approach whatsoever to impose this labyrinth of contradictory restrictions on new editors just because they're new. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 00:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
ECR should prohibit RMs because new editors are unlikely to start helpful RMs, and likely to start time-wasting ones. ECR exists at least in part because despite good intentions, new editors are unlikely to know enough about editing to edit in this topic area non-disruptively. Levivich ( talk) 01:17, 27 July 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.
Initiated by Selfstudier at 13:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
To match WP:ECR (Idk if it is worth changing both to link to namespace 1).
@ Barkeep49: @ Zero0000: The discussion here refers (at the bottom)
@
Zero0000: Not only. See Barkeep49 statement at the relevant AE complaint (still open) However, I will note that the contradiction between the "topic area" as defined and what areas ECR do not allow for is present. And so in a different scenario I would say this user shouldn't have to eat a block that could then be escalated if there are future transgressions. However, given that there was other conduct leading to a topic ban that factor doesn't seem to apply here.
To be clear, my opinion is that ECR, being later, should take precedence but that's just me.
Selfstudier (
talk)
08:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
And now, the same technicality being referred to by another editor. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
@ Zero0000: I am only "proposing" that this "technicality" which has not been identified by myself, be fixed up, I'm just initiating the paperwork, to the extent anyone thinks that it is required. What I want is that it not be available as a defense by non EC editors, currently two of them mentioning it, and I suspect more inbound if left unresolved. If there is another way to clean it up, I'm all ears. And @ Doug Weller: has now raised the question indirectly as well https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&curid=21090546&diff=1237149351&oldid=1236465052#Why_does_ARPBIA_allow_userspace_as_an_exception? Selfstudier ( talk) 12:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
@ Sir Kenneth Kho: Many thanks for clarifying my inept proposal. For me, though, ECR should function like a tban, "any edits that relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict (broadly construed) anywhere on Wikipedia" Selfstudier ( talk) 17:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
There is a small mismatch between the area of scope and ECR and perhaps arbcom wants to fix that. Perhaps it doesn't. I'm not sure why I am involved in this case. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Can we have this request actually explained, please?
I don't see any contradiction between "userspace" in "area of conflict" and "talkspace" at ECR. They serve different purposes.
One place says that the "area of conflict" does not extend to userspace (which implies that it does extend to talkspace). ECR indicates that talkspace has some differences in restrictions compared to article space. Both these make sense and can be true at the same time. We definitely do not want the "area of conflict" to exclude talkspace, because then the ECR restrictions on talkspace would not apply to it.
Or maybe I missed the point entirely. Zero talk 15:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
As I see it, Definition of the "area of conflict" defines which pages and edits are subject to editing restrictions in ARBPIA, and WP:ARBECR says what those restrictions are. I don't see any contradiction there, and it seems to me that changing "userspace" to "talkspace" in the former would remove article talk pages from the area of conflict and disable all the restrictions there. Zero talk 02:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
To editor Selfstudier: The contradiction you claim to exist actually does not exist. Let's start at ECR:
The Committee may apply the "extended confirmed restriction" to specified topic areas." So now, we ask, what is the "topic area" in the case of ARBPIA? That sentence has a footnote:
The current topic areas under this restriction are listed as having the "extended confirmed restriction" in the table of active Arbitration Committee sanctions." So we click on that link and find a big table. ARBPIA is near the end. It says:
The entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted; edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace." (my emphasis) So in fact ECR agrees with WP:Contentious_topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Definition of the "area_of_conflict" that edits in userspace are not in the ARBPIA "topic area". Where is the contradiction?
I'll also repeat (please answer): You seem to be proposing that "edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace" at WP:Contentious_topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Definition of the "area_of_conflict" be changed to "edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of talkspace". Why does that make any sense? You want to remove talkspace from the topic area?? Zero talk 11:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
To editor Selfstudier: If arbcom wish to undo the exclusion of userspace from the ARBPIA topic area, that's their decision, but your proposal does much more than that. Zero talk 12:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Maybe this revert I did a couple of days ago is a useful test. Is the revert valid or invalid under the remedies? Sean.hoyland ( talk) 12:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
This amendment request came to my attention after @ Doug Weller: pointed it to me, I believe I can provide some clarity for the arbitrators.
I think there is an error in the request as pointed out by @ Zero0000: the intended request is likely "remove exception of userspace" instead of "change userspace to talkspace" in WP:PIA, and the opposing side would be "add exception of userspace" to WP:ECR.
The answer would depend on whether arbitrators intended WP:ECR A(1) to overrule or uphold WP:PIA 4(B), if there is an answer, we are done.
If arbitrators did not consider it at all, the strongest argument for the initiating side would be WP:BROADLY, as the broadest possible thing would be no exception to userspace.
I'm arguing in favor of the opposing side, the strongest argument would be WP:UOWN, as userspace is traditionally given broad latitude too, it seems that WP:ECR and WP:UOWN should have their own jurisdiction, and on the balance WP:ECR should not be excessively broad. Sir Kenneth Kho ( talk) 16:50, 28 July 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.
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. |
Following a request for action based on evidence of alleged harassment and canvassing, the Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the topic area of historical elections. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:
For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Proposing -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Consensus was clearly achieved in favor of not removing elements of county pages (presidential election results) that had been there for decades and are clearly a key aspect of understanding a county. I'm not sure what this is about other than someone having sour grapes that the universe of users who care deeply about this aspect of county pages and believe it’s a critical aspect (even if prose might be preferable). DemocraticLuntz ( talk) 22:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I have seen an increasing problem with off-wiki canvassing (largely done via Twitter) since the middle of last year. This has largely taken the form of editors posting on Twitter about disputes they are having on Wikipedia (or about matters they disagree with), which in turn has driven both edit warring and canvassed contributions to discussions. In several cases, these canvassed contribution have changed the direction/outcome of the discussions (for example this discussion, the consensus of which completely changed after off-wiki activity started on 15 June).
In addition to the canvassing effect, the off-wiki activity has often involved personal attacks and sometimes veered into harassment. In one recent incident, an editor who edits under their real name had their details posted on Twitter by another editor who was using Twitter to canvass people to an American politics dispute. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative environment, but from a personal perspective, it is extremely hard to maintain civil collaboration with editors that you are aware are saying things about you on their social media accounts that would fall under WP:NPA if posted here. When raising off-wiki personal attacks with one editor, rather than apologise, they brushed it off, saying it was "separate" to their Wikipedia work, while another editor who became involved in the dispute after seeing the posts on Twitter saying such attacks were fine "as long as it does compromise your privacy or safety".
If there is to be a case on this issue, I personally would like to see three outcomes:
Number 5 7 21:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm phoning in from what The Good Captain aptly called the "peanut gallery", to comment about the aspect of hybrid cases that concerns whether or not ArbCom should assume the role of the filing party. I've been thinking about this, and I think I can offer a distinction that may be useful, and points in this case to yes, you should accept this case.
There's a pretty well-established consensus that ArbCom should consider cases where (a) the community has said there's a problem, and where (b) the community cannot solve it ourselves. Here, there have been some ANI threads, and there appear to be private communications from community members to ArbCom, in which there is private evidence of concerns about harassment and/or canvassing (per discussion here). That satisfies the criteria of (a) the community asking for ArbCom help, and (b) the community being unable to process private information. Also, and this is key, it might well be awkward to expect the editor(s) who feel harassed to come forward in public and be the filing party. So it makes good sense for ArbCom to "self-file".
In contrast, hybrid cases didn't work so well in the Polish Holocaust case, where ArbCom initiated the case after an outside publication criticized Wikipedia. (Strictly speaking, there had also been requests from the community, including a declined case request, but those never reached critical mass.) What prompted ArbCom to initiate that case was ArbCom's reaction to outside pressure. A couple of months later, ArbCom granted ECP to an account representing an outside group, in order for that account to file a case, but it turned out that that person was wasting everyone's time.
So the distinction I want to make is that it's good for ArbCom to self-initiate a case when there is private evidence, particularly of harassment, and members of the community have provided this private evidence, but might suffer further harassment if they filed the case themselves. I would want ArbCom to consider such cases, including this one. But when the pressure to start a case is coming primarily from outside the community, ArbCom should generally wait for a community request to come forward (or private evidence from the community about harassment), instead of ArbCom jumping ahead themselves. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
The purpose of this statement is to respond to the Arbitration Committee's note that it is welcoming thoughts about the Tropical Cyclones case and other "hybrid" cases involving both public and private evidence. A principle that should be followed in this case, as in other cases involving off-wiki coordination, is that transparency is the best policy when possible, and that ArbCom should consider whether evidence that is received as private evidence must be kept private, or may be made public. Private evidence should be made public unless there is a sufficient reason for keeping it private. Valid reasons for keeping evidence private include preserving the identity of pseudonymous editors and fear of reprisals or adverse consequences. As much information as is possible should be made public, in order to maintain the trust and confidence of the community. Since Twitter / X is an open social medium, discussions on Twitter / X should be entered into public evidence, although the identity of pseudonymous editors should be preserved.
I have not been involved in the discussions of historical elections. However, I infer from the mention of county pages that one of the issues is similar to one of the main issues with tropical cyclones, which is at what level of detail should information be broken out. One of the issues with tropical cyclones was that discussion of when individual articles were in order about specific storms was being suppressed, based on a previously established consensus. If there are issues about keeping or merging county pages, it is necessary that they be discussed openly, on article talk pages, or by deletion discussions, not off-wiki. Guidelines for when separate articles are in order at the county level or other specific level should be agreed to by consensus when possible.
Transparency is the best policy whenever possible, and ArbCom should make as much evidence public as is possible. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
My guess is that the lack of commentary from the parties is due to one of a few things:
Just because no party is discussing it doesn't mean there's not a controversy. ArbCom has run cases where parties refused to give opening statements (or participate full-stop) in the past. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this motion as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should open the proposed case or provide additional information.
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}}.
|
Salfanto blocked indef ( diff) as a regular admin action (no AE enhancements). El_C 12:08, 16 July 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 Salfanto
Salfanto appears to have chronic issues with the WP:VERIFY, WP:DUE and WP:SYNTH policies. Aside from the above cited diffs, their edits on Human wave attack where they persistently inserted content about Ukraine using human wave attacks using Russian state media sources and synthesis of other references (such as in this diff) showcase their disregard to policy in favour to I suppose WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS about them percieving that content about Russia is not ″neutral″. The eagerness to continue using poor sources like social media to claim the deaths of individuals even after receiving a block is not only disturbing but to me indicates that this editor should not be editing in this topic, if at all about living people in general.
Discussion concerning SalfantoStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Salfanto
Statement by JDialaIt is indisputable that Salfanto's sourcing does not meet our standards. It should be noted however that Salfanto is a rather new editor, with the overwhelming majority of his edits having taken place in the last eight months. Salfanto's conduct strikes me as trout-worthy and a learning experience for him, and a glance at his edit history indicates that notwithstanding some mistakes he is here to build an encyclopedia. The topic area suffers from more serious issues like persistent low-level POV pushing. I think there's a structural problem in that low-level POV pushing by established editors is far harder to identify and prosecute than comparatively minor mistakes by inexperienced editors like ocassional 1RR or RS violations. The former is ultimately more pernicious to the project. JDiala ( talk) 11:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by ManyAreasExpertI'm still waiting for the editor to explain their edits here Talk:Bogdan Khmelnitsky Battalion#Assessed by the ISW . Another edit, where they add ambiguous This claim was assessed by Institute for the Study of War on 7 November 2023 , is [11] . ManyAreasExpert ( talk) 21:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by SaintPaulOfTarsusThe user has continued to make misleading and dubiously-sourced edits within the topic area in just the past few hours, asserting
here that several foreign fighters killed in action were the commanders of units supposedly called the "1st Rifle Platoon", "2nd Rifle Platoon", and "3rd Recon Platoon", despite no such term existing in the cited articles. I can only conclude that these alleged military unit names are either completely fabricated by Salfanto or perhaps drawn from some "phantom" source the user for whatever reason chose not to reference; the association of the deceased individuals with the alleged military units remains unexplained in either scenario. In the same edit the user asserts that Ukraine's 22nd Brigade was a "belligerent" in the 2023 counteroffensive citing an article that claimed the brigade was, at the time of publication, Result concerning Salfanto
|
Aredoros87 indefinitely topic banned from AA2. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 04:29, 15 July 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 Aredoros87
Despite still having an indefinite restriction requiring to obtain consensus to readd any content that has been reverted in AA or related conflict articles, Aredoros87 has violated it. In addition, they've been POV pushing and removing sourced content. Vanezi ( talk) 09:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Aredoros87Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Aredoros87
Statement by (username)Result concerning Aredoros87
|
JoeJShmo ( talk · contribs) is topic banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict for 6 months and 1000 edits by ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk · contribs). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:19, 19 July 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 JoeJShmo
JoeJShmo, a non-XC editor, has been warned about CT restrictions in force on certain pages related to Palestine–Israel conflict. In particular, they were explained that they can only place edit requests [30]. As can be seen, they immediately opposed. Even though several established editors and an experienced admin Doug Weller tried to reason with them, they didn't report or sanction them after a repeated violation, this effort has unfortunately failed – JoeJShmo continued to post on a CT-restricted page Talk:Mossad. I have no idea what is needed to stop them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AJoeJShmo&diff=1234354020&oldid=1233536763
Discussion concerning JoeJShmoStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by JoeJShmo(note: I've just seen the word limit. I'm not sure if I'm over it and I apologize if I am. I'm not sure what to do as I believe all the info below is highly relevant.) The statement above by user Kashmiri is grossly misleading. I'll explain my position. It started when I was unaware of the EC rules and edited in a page relating to the Israeli Palestine conflict (I edit on a small phone where the warnings on top of many pages are automatically collapsed), and I got a warning on my talk page shortly after, so from there on I was aware of the EC rule. Shortly after I posted on a talk page in this topic, being unaware the rules extended to all discussions, and got a warning about that too, so at this point I was fully aware of the rules (see here where I request clarification on the rules in another topic before posting). Later I posted an edit request in the Mossad page which someone responded to. I responded in turn, making what to me was a logical assumption that the exception to edit request includes responses to editors who seemed unaware of the exact arguments behind the edit request. Thereafter, Kashmiri posted a fairly rude warning on my talk page, saying something like 'are you asking to get sanctioned' (it may be relevant to note here that this user may feel some sort of animosity towards me after I had previously called out that they had not apologized for something anti-Semitic they had said, see my talk page under 'warning'). I explained the ambiguousness of the rules and questioned this user's lack of assuming good faith. I went on to raise this topic in the village pump policy page ( WP:VPP#Talk pages of contentious topics), and the responses so far have been mixed, and a couple people have brought forth the idea that perhaps clarifying the request or responding to an editor who hasn't understood the request would be allowed. I think it relevant to mention that the request I was making in the Mossad page was a purely grammatical request, quite un-controversial (a matter of whether common usage in regards to the Mossad is to use the word 'the'). In light of the fact that the EC rule was obviously intended to prevent provocative and uninformed contribution in controversial areas (some editors in the above linked discussion even pointed to this for the reason to be strict in this matter), and the ambiguousness of the policy, I though it logical that any editor with common sense would not take issue with the discussion I continued to have at the Mossad talk page. I would classify my discussion there as clarifying my position (a matter of using the word 'the') and bringing further sources to my position. If any editor had taken a clear position against my proposed request that I didn't think stemmed from a simple misunderstanding and a possible lack of clarity on my part, I don't think I would have responded further. In conclusion, I believe there's a certain amount of good faith inherent in the decisions of when to make issues out of policy (for a more obvious example, I'd point to non EC editors who respond 'thank you' to an editor that implemented their request), and unfortunately, I don't think Kashmiri has demonstrated that good faith here today.
Statement by SelfstudierAlso see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Talk pages of contentious topics. I also made an effort with defendant at their talk page and rapidly concluded that nothing would help. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by NableezyJust noting that while this was open the user added another extended confirmed violation here. nableezy - 13:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by TarnishedPathGiven the manner in which the editor has obtained XC, I think a sensible solution would be its revocation until they have 1,000 mainspace edits and a broadly construed TBAN until that time. TarnishedPath talk 11:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning JoeJShmo
|
Dadude sandstorm ( talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked as an ordinary admin action by Callanecc ( talk · contribs). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:58, 18 July 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 Dadude sandstorm
I gave the CT awareness alert after noticing a problematic history of edits in the topic area, including Special:Diff/1234357835. Today's edit to Destiny (streamer) linked above left me speechless, though. Dadude sandstorm is incapable of contributing productively to this topic area and possibly beyond. DanCherek ( talk) 02:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Dadude sandstormStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Dadude sandstormMy sincere apologies for this lapse in discipline. I got annoyed seeing the dismissive comment, which when added to the fact that the comment was from an IP user, incensed me. I offer to redact that comment/edit it to be more conducive to maintaining a good atmosphere on wikipedia. On the other hand, I strongly feel those changes to the Destiny article + the edit summary are nothing better than what such a subject deserves. Having openly outed himself as a quasi-fascist by supporting political assassinations and murder within a day, the article needs to be more strongly worded. while i do admit the (objective correct but inappropriate) mention of 'cuck' was the wrong thing to do, the rest of the changes were but simply stating his actions from the last 24 hours.
Statement by Isabelle BelatoI'm surprised they weren't indef blocked after this egregious edit. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 02:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Dadude sandstorm
|
JoeJShmo's appeal is declined. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:02, 28 July 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 JoeJShmoI request the topic ban to be lifted.
Statement by ScottishFinnishRadishThe topic ban was placed because the editor clearly does not have the necessary experience and grasp on WP:PAGS to contribute constructively in the topic area. I brought up the technical 1RR violation as it demonstrated that they immediately jumped into removing, even after being reverted, prose that they disagreed with. They did this claiming NPOV violations, and demanding that their edits not be reverted [37] [38]. We don't need more stonewalling POV warring going on in the topic area. The discussion at User talk:JoeJShmo#WP:CLAIM demonstrates a lack of a clear understanding of WP:PAGS which is necessary to edit constructively in this incredibly contentious topic. This comes after a block and a topic ban for behavior in the topic. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 11:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by SelfstudierNo comment on the sanction itself other than I think appellant largely brought this on themselves. As I have indicated before, think we ought to try and avoid that non EC editors end up at this board at all, that's not going to help someone new get to grips with the way WP works, not in a CT. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by JoeJShmoStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by BilledMammalA major issue in the enforcement of the ECP restriction is the inconsistency. Whether editors are sanctioned for violating it appears to be entirely based on chance. For example, several months ago I reported IOHANNVSVERVS and Osps7 for gaining ECP primarily through ECR violations, but no action was taken. (To date, neither appear to have made more than 500 edits outside the topic area.) Since then, I've declined to report other such editors, as I've been under the impression that it is not seen as an actionable issue. I think we need to be consistent in how we treat editors who gain extended-confirmed status through violations; either we sanction all of them or none of them, and if we are going to sanction them we impose comparable sanctions. Personally, I think some level of sanction is appropriate, but it needs to be consistently applied, as to do otherwise would be unfair for editors like JoeJShmo. See also Redefinition of ECP and Redefining ECP, which are about how to address good-faith edits that work towards extended-confirmed status; the rough consensus of the community appears to be that we should not adjust ECP to make it more difficult to work towards, and nor should we fault editors for working towards it unless they do so through bad-faith edits. BilledMammal ( talk) 00:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by TarnishedPathThe sanction looked very measured to me given that the editor had not long before received a block for 31 hours for NPA. This topic area needs less disruption, not more. 1000 extra edits and 6 months will give the editor sufficient time to understand WP policies and guidelines. In that way the sanction is purely preventative. TarnishedPath talk 11:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by The KipWhile I do agree with BM’s concerns about applying ECR in a consistent manner (and/or redefining it), I concur with those above in that I really don’t see an issue with this particular sanction. As I recently told another editor, hopefully the TBAN results in moderated/refined behavior that they need to develop before any potential return to the area. The Kip ( contribs) 17:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by berchanhimezFrom what I've seen, there is no consensus whatsoever on what even counts as gaming EC. And that seems to be the crux of this topic ban - a belief that the editor "gamed" EC and is still not ready, so it is being "reset" to basically start counting over. While I appreciate administrators are given wide latitude to impose sanctions for Arbitration Enforcement purposes, I do not believe such a "reset of EC" is in line with current lack of consensus on what gaming is (or even if it's a problem to begin with). That said, I don't see any reason that, given the edits after the appellant reached automatic extended confirmed being applied, that a regular topic ban (indefinite or time limited), without a number of edits, for a specific topic area would not be appropriate. I realize that this may be contradictory - I don't believe a "until you redo extended confirmed requirements" topic ban is something that should be applied - yet I also think that a regular topic ban shouldn't be avoided just because the user recently got extended confirmed. There is also the question of what the "extra" restrictions of edit count and time frame mean for appeals. Is it intended that the appellant in this case can't appeal it before 1000 total edits and 6 months? Is it intended that appeals before that time should just be declined, or looked at more carefully? Is it intended to automatically expire at that time, and who is responsible for "assessing" the 1000 edits and 6 months criteria to decide if it's expired? What if the user gets to 900 edits, creates 3 new articles in other contentious topic areas (that they aren't topic banned from) without any issue whatsoever? Best to just make it a regular topic ban, either time-limited or indefinite - and let the user follow normal appeal processes as anyone else if/when they feel they have shown their competence enough to get it removed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 18:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Result of the appeal by JoeJShmo
|
Tobyw87 topic-banned indefinitely by ScottishFinnishRadish. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 07:55, 23 July 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 Tobyw87
Violates WP:AGF, WP:NPA, casts aspersions. Quotes below. starship .paint ( RUN) 12:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Tobyw87Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Tobyw87I did not personally attack anyone and if my statements are construed that way, that is my mistake. This is a very contentious issue and there are obviously many different valid perspectives in the literature and in media and all should be reflective on Wikipedia. I believe the pro-Hamas perspective is currently dominating on Wikipedia and I am entirely free to think this and say it if I want to. In fact, there have been many media articles citing Wikipedia's overt anti-Israel bias---
here,
here,
here, and
here to cite just a few. The editor who submitted this request is the one who is engaging in personal attacks---assuming that I am not in good faith, assuming that I do not know how Wikipedia works, etc. I don't believe I've attacked them even one time and yet I am the one being sanctioned for it. I believe the mission of Wikipedia is important and as this is a community that operates on the basis of consensus, I will respect any ban going forward and cease all editing on Israel/Palestine topics. I am extremely biased by my own admission and if the community judges I am not capable of editing Wikipedia adequately according to its standards I will 100% accept this judgement. Thank you. Tobyw87 ( talk) 20:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by KashmiriThans @SP for filing. Yeah, the editor doesn't seem to understand what Wikipedia is and how it works, esp. re. sourcing. I'm not personally offended, and my Jewish friends will have a good laugh, but both the attack and the user's editing history suggest that the user may be incapable of editing objectively in the Palestine–Israel topic area. — kashmīrī TALK 12:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Tobyw87
|
Dtobias is indefinitely topic banned from gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:05, 26 July 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 Dtobias
(Diffs below) Anytime there’s a discussion involving an article that falls under GENSEX topics, User:dtobias comes in and more or less just rants about the evil transgenders and trans activists in a way that contributes nothing to the article’s talk page and only serves to espouse his views on trans rights devoid of any relevance to editing the article. He also frequently either directly accuses or through a paper thin pretense accuses other editors of being trans activists without the wiki’s best interests at heart. This includes saying that properly gendering trans people in line with MOS:GENDERID is comparable to a Muslim user forcing his religious beliefs on Wikipedia, and accusing users of trying to discount any source that’s not PinkNews even when the sources in question are very demonstrably unreliable and/or employ the use of anti-trans slurs. On at least one occasion, he has also made edits to GENSEX articles themselves, referring to trans women using he/him pronouns.
[39] Unasked for rant about how
[40] Irrelevant
WP:NOTFORUM tangent about how
[41] In response to being told to follow
MOS:GENDERID, he goes on a whole
WP:NOTFORUM thing about [42] Another WP:NOTFORUM thing about “trans ideology”, this time comparing trans people to people who think they’re Napoleon and are thus entitled to all of Europe. [43] WP:NOTFORUM ramble about the rise of “transgenderism”. [44] WP:NOTFORUM rant about the term “TERF” + comment saying that trans men are women. [45] WP:AGF WP:DIS reply saying that asking editors to follow MOS:GENDERID is comparable to a Muslim editor forcing his religious views on Wikipedia. [46] Accusing editors of trying to POV-push for saying that a source that used slurs to refer to trans women wasn’t reliable. EDIT: Sorry, the slur one was below. This one was just basic AGF POV accusation. I have no idea why I got the two mixed up or why I thought they were the same response. That’s on me for sloppy proofreading, sincerest apologies. [47] Ditto. I think he just copied and pasted his response. [48] Editing a trans woman’s BLP to refer to her by he/him pronouns in violation of MOS:GENDERID.
[49] Him being taken to ANI previously over his behavior on GENSEX topics [50] The thread being moved to AE, where he was given a caution over his behavior.
The AE thread linked above.
EDIT: Sorry if I’m at all awkward at this! This is my first AE thread.
Discussion concerning DtobiasStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DtobiasI stand by the truth (as I see it) of everything I said, if not necessarily the civility or appropriateness in context. This subject brings out the worst in everybody it touches. I will abide by whatever decision the community makes in this action. I do hope that those who look into this matter look at the behavior of all people involved in the discussions the above diffs were part of, and not just at mine; those articles might be better off if a number of people whose views are too strongly held and expressed to make them well-suited for dispassionate encyclopedia creation would step back a bit. To mention a few of the above diffs where further comment is needed: [52] was in response to a comment saying that pretty much all of the UK news media should be dismissed as unreliable because people have criticized their "transphobia". [53] I wasn't "ranting" there, just quoting part of an academic paper being discussed, where it mentions the definition and usage of "TERF", which had also been under discussion on that page. [54] I wasn't "being told to follow MOS:GENDERID" because I hadn't violated it; the discussion was between others, which I jumped into with my own two cents (er, "tuppence" since it was about a UK subject) about how being compelled to use language based on one side of a controversial issue limits ability to debate. This doesn't mean that I would ever intentionally break Wikipedia style rules, whether or not I agreed with them; see below for where I self-reverted when I accidentally did so (much later than this debate). [55] An error on my part which I immediately corrected, the final edit here being, as of this writing, the most recent edit on that page, so nobody has yet found it in need of further correction or alteration. *Dan T.* ( talk) 01:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC) There does seem to be a double standard in effect, where people on one side of the issue can use all the forceful and biased language they wish usually with no repercussions, but the other side needs to walk on eggshells. Even saying that there's such a thing as transgender ideology gets you in trouble, as seen in comments below. *Dan T.* ( talk) 05:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC) Re LightNightLights: No, nobody should be banned from commenting about a subject due to their personal characteristics or beliefs. But if they are using hyperbolic, violent rhetoric aimed at others of opposing beliefs, one can call into question their objectivity and professionalism on the subject and their suitability for rendering judgment as an uninvolved party. I note the rhetorical technique of using analogies (in this case black people to trans people) to make a point; this is a very commonly done tactic, and one that I'm being rebuked for here. Re Abecedare: I appreciate your comments even if they're not always what I want to hear. Neat username! Interesting user page quote! Seems like you truly practice what you preach, given your user history as far as I've looked shows absolutely no involvement in culture warring on any side. Can you explain why my use of analogies is "inapt" while others' may not be? I'm not just being argumentative here; I actually care what you think. *Dan T.* ( talk) 19:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by FirefangledfeathersI don't think Dan's statement that he does "not necessarily [stand by] the civility or appropriateness in context" is enough here. The quoting of 1984 was pretty egregious. At the time, we were discussing a tough issue. An activist was objecting to the circumstances surrounding an OB/GYN doctor who is a trans woman. The article text had described the doctor as "a male transgender doctor", which I objected to. Another editor proposed a change to "a transgender doctor", with other participants objecting to that. Finding the right option in these disputes is tough work. So many good editors have been pushed away due to the acrimony in this topic area. We deserve people that won't step into a tough content dispute to contribute only a newspeak accusation. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 02:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by starship.paintCertainly Dtobias needs to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric and stop with all of the comparisons. But Snokalok's report needs refinement - misreading a quote (that was literally put in Template:Quote frame) as a "NOTFORUM rant" and noting an instance of misgendering that was literally corrected by Dtobias one minute later. Meanwhile the "Unasked for rant" was a direct response to an editor who called for sources such as The Times, The Guardian and the BBC to be found to be not generally reliable on the topic based on the reporting of sources including the LGBT magazine Them. starship .paint ( RUN) 04:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by BilledMammalI agree with Starship.Paint. To add to what they said, Snokalok said that Dtobias accused Snokalok also says that Dtobias said In this discussion, the context to which is a situation where both sex and gender need to be identified in order for a reader to make sense of the content, Snokalok argues, somewhat uncivilly at times ( BilledMammal ( talk) 06:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by berchanhimezInitial comment hidden because I incorporate/clarify it below I do not agree with the statement by Isabelle below that the use of the terms "transgender ideology" or "transgenderism" should have any impact on this case, nor should they be surprising. They are perfectly valid terms for the things they describe. To be clear, I am fully supportive of those who believe that the solution to feeling as if they were assigned the wrong gender at birth being given all possible forms of treatment for the mental health problems they have because of those feelings. But that does not mean that there is not an "ideology" surrounding it in a political sense, nor does it mean that "transgenderism" is an inaccurate term to describe the concept of someone being transgender. A quick review of the diffs presented by the originator of this complaint - I agree that dtobias may be able to tone down the rhetoric a bit. But let's not ignore the fact that the originator claimed User:dtobias comes in and more or less just rants about the evil transgenders and trans activistswithout providing any evidence of dtobias calling them "evil transgenders". It seems that the originator may need to take a step back and look at their own rhetoric - legitimate discourse regarding transgender topics cannot be stifled just because someone disagrees with another, and misrepresenting what someone else has said should not be tolerated. To be blunt, I think dtobias may have been correct in saying Trans activists are prone to throwing tantrums when they don't get their way- this appears to be one of those tantrums intended to get an editor that is disagreed with removed from the topic area. In reviewing the "not a forum" complaints made, there seems to be none that are using the talk page as a forum - those comments (from my view) are all relevant to the discussions they were made in. Ultimately, this appears to be based primarily on one content dispute that the originator of this complaint feels strongly about. I have no opinion (at this time) as to whether the issues raised (over MOS:GENDERID and how we refer to transgender persons in their articles) merit further/wider discussion - but I do not see any action being needed here aside from perhaps a warning to the originator that disagreeing with someone does not mean you can ignore their opinions and try to silence them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 08:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (Sweet6970)I see that
Isabelle Belato has said Comment about the final diff quoted in the complaint above [57]. Without any input from anyone else, this was corrected one minute later. [58]. This edit is part of a series of edits, which started with an edit where ‘Wadhwa’ was misspelled as ‘Wradha’ [59]. This was corrected in the next edit, one minute later: [60]. Dtobias is obviously correcting himself as he goes along. To present the final diff in the complaint out of context is misleading, to put it politely. I think that Snokalok needs a formal warning not to behave like this. Sweet6970 ( talk) 16:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC) @ Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist: Yes, of course, someone who endorses threats of violence against anyone is not fit to sit in judgment on them. And your comparison of feminism to racism is inflammatory. Sweet6970 ( talk) 19:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC) @ Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist: Regarding your latest comment: WP:NOTFORUM, and this kind of discussion is particularly unsuitable to be held at AE. Sweet6970 ( talk) 20:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist
transgender ideology and gender ideology link to Anti-LGBT rhetoric and Anti-gender movement, where more context is given for RS considering these offensive and deliberately vague buzzwords seeking to portray trans people as ideologically driven. Now, DTobias knows these are offensive phrases, because at
WP:NOQUEERPHOBES (an essay written by myself and other queer editors to address rampant queerphobia on Wikipedia) they objectd on the grounds that: It's only after these kinds of phrases are noted to be offensive they argue things like There's also snide comments arguing the mainstream media is unduly saying trans people are marginalized: I was thinking of giving this user a warning on his talk page following this comment at LGB Alliance: And there is a clear
WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality evidenced in comments like: This user repeatedly, in every situation they can, deliberately uses provocative and offensive language - comparing trans people to people who think they're Napolean, religious beliefs, Authoritarian Orwellianism, and generally using language that frames being transgender as a powerful ideology. To all those who think this isn't problematic - would you argue the same if he repeatedly referred to the "homosexual agenda" and "gay activists calling everything homophobic" and called being questioned on such language evidence of Newspeak? WP:RGW behavior for sure. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 16:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by IsaidnowayI do agree with the statement by Isabelle below that the use of the terms "transgender ideology" or "transgenderism" should have an impact on this case. And it doesn't "surprise me" either because it is terminology (ideologically-motivated ... ideological objective), Dtobias frequently uses when editing in this CT area. Two of the diffs below are three years old, but it shows a pattern, along with the multiple diffs above.
From a personal viewpoint, I believe that comment in the first diff is insulting and denigrating Transgender Women. See also: "Gender ideology". Isaidnoway (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by LightNightLightsRegarding this edit: Sure thing. Let us ban black people too from speaking about racism just because they are anti-racism. LightNightLights ( talk • contribs) 17:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by LunaHasArrivedI also think it is relevant that on multiple of these edits (1,3,5) Dtobias was reminded about notforum, and yet decided to ignore this policy and continuing in this behaviour. Also all of these diffs are from within the last month, they seem to have done 50 contributions in this time period so this controversial editing contributed a significant part of their recent editing history. LunaHasArrived ( talk) 10:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Dtobias
|
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).
Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2024#c-ScottishFinnishRadish-20240721163500-User_sanctions_(CT/A-I),
logged at
16:34, 21 July 2024
I was about to post the following to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee when I saw I got banned. I'll post it here instead:
(topic: ECR)
"The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed"
I'm guessing it's so broad that it includes user talk pages, and going even further, that it would allow a non-admin to remove an edit on another user's talk page (even though that would clash with WP:UP#OOUP). (To be very clear, I absolutely did not add that comment on Joe Roe's page knowingly violating ECR rules)
Just found out the original block wasn't even applicable under the ARBPIA decision to begin with:
Definition of the "area of conflict"
4) For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing
- the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and
- edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")
- Passed 6 to 0 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Emdosis ( talk) 22:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Just noting that I have indefinitely topic banned them as well, for WP:BATTLEGROUND editing and casting aspersions. [73] [74] [75] ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 14:02, 22 July 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.
Emdosis made a comment that was in violation of ECR, it was reverted, and they reinstated despite discussion on their talk page saying they shouldn't. Reasonable block.
Emdosis, if I can give you some advice; this sanction is the equivalent of a slap on the wrist. I suggest that you withdraw this appeal and instead accept it. In a week, when it expires, you can return, make 200 productive edits and non-trivial edits in other topic areas, and join this topic area if you are still interested in doing so. Don't earn yourself a more permanent sanction over trying to contribute to the topic area a couple of weeks early.
I realize you're only 100 edits from ECR, but I suggest 200 just to avoid any controversy in the future over the edits you made within the topic area contributing to you earning ECR.
In addition, I see you cited WP:IAR; for inexperienced editors, IAR is a trap that will only get you in trouble. Eventually you'll realize when it's appropriate to apply, but for now, especially within contentious topic areas, I suggest you stay well clear of it. BilledMammal ( talk) 20:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I know that in theory all blocks are appealable but I will say it again, non EC editors arguing about EC restrictions should not have any standing at this board. By the time we are done here, the block will have run its course. Selfstudier ( talk) 21:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion, the belief that userspace edits are not in the ARBPIA topic area is well founded. Not only was the exclusion of userspace passed 6-0 by the arbcom decision that defined the topic area, but it is stated explicitly in the list of topic areas which is specified at WP:ARBECR (footnote 2) as the topic areas which are covered. Once userspace is deemed outside the topic area, even phrases like "all pages in the topic area" do not include it. Zero talk 12:19, 28 July 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
"Tag-team" edit warring at Zionism over "colonization", a continuation of the edit war discussed above at #Nishidani, which closed July 11 ("A bunch of socks/compromised accounts blocked. Further action related to anything here will need a separate report."). I won't repeat what I wrote there at #Statement by Levivich (Nishidani).
Other examples at other articles:
Since July 8, ABHammad has made five edits [94], they are:
Previous UTP discussions between us (permalinks): Jun 12, Jun 13, Jun 24 ( response). Levivich ( talk) 03:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Re Vegan's comment: I don't think Vegan misunderstood me, I think they are intentionally twisting my words. If I say "We are witnessing climate change", it obviously doesn't mean I support climate change. And nobody would confuse "settlement dismantlement" for "the dismantling of Israel". Unfortunately this is not the first time Vegan has tried to "catch" me with this kind of rhetorical gamesmanship, recently at Talk:Zionism: 1, 2, 3. This may be because I accused Vegan of bludgeoning last month. Levivich ( talk) 21:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
one veteran editor here explicitly wishes for the end of Zionism and the dismantling of Israeli societyis another example of the rhetorical gamesmanship/twisting of words, now aimed at another editor. Nobody said anything about dismantling Israeli society. Equating "the end of Zionism" with "dismantling of Israeli society" is no different than equating "settlement dismantlement" with "dismantlement of Israel." Basically it's an attempt to equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism. Sound familiar? I believe it's nothing other than trolling/baiting. The point is to derail this report and take the focus off of the reported editor by creating new endless arguments, just like Vegan's bludgeoning behavior I complained about earlier. Admins, please put a stop to this. Levivich ( talk) 13:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
the dismantling of Israel's colonial settler societyis not the same thing as
the dismantling of Israeli society. There is more to Israel than settler colonialism; neither Israel nor any other Jewish homeland needs to be a colonial settler society. Calling for an end to Israel's occupation and apartheid is not the same thing as calling for an end to Israel itself. Levivich ( talk) 15:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
And still above all you simply refuse to say the simple words "I don't wish for the end of Zionism". Why is that?I'm of course not going to take this bait, my political beliefs are irrelevant, but I should not have to put up with this in response to filing an AE complaint. Levivich ( talk) 16:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
restoring important, well sourced material by scholars and leading analysts, meanwhile it removed the sentence "Both Israel and Palestine frequently accuse the other of planning to commit genocide", which was sourced to Damien Short's book about genocide and an article in Journal of Genocide Studies (so it removed scholarship, not restored it). Meanwhile, it restored content about the opinions of Doron Weber and Mosab Hassan Yousef, neither of which are scholars or leading analysts. It restored the lead image to the blood-stain image (which was a change made on Jul 16 by Nice4What). It changed "Hoffman opined that Hamas has consistently maintained genocidal intentions" to the less neutral phrasing "Hoffman underscored the significance of the 1988 Hamas charter, asserting that Hamas has consistently maintained genocidal intentions and demonstrated a lack of interest in "moderation, restraint, negotiation, and the building of pathways to peace." It added content about the Hamas Charter to the Background section. There were a bunch of changes in addition to that, it seems. It's a tough diff to read, I'm not sure entirely if everything was "restored" or if some of it was new. Levivich ( talk) 16:02, 28 July 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.
I cannot speak for the other editors mentioned, but I can confirm that I have no connection with them. It seems that Levivich's complaint is simply pointed at those who disagree with Levivich's point of view. This is evident from his recent, deeply inflammatory comment that we are "We are witnessing the last gasps of Zionism", and their edit warring, both leaving no question regarding their views on the IP conflict.
Levivich's complaint appears to be exactly over what Wikipedia expects its editors to do: debate content, and when it comes to POV-pushing, reject the disruptive addition of controversial information forcibly added without, or before consensus is reached. The reverts Levivich shows were made in response to:
If anything, the real issue here is a group of veteran editors pushing an anti-Israeli viewpoint on Wikipedia, promoting controversial views as encyclopedic facts, and threatening those who oppose them. This complaint is just the latest in a series of attempts to silence opposition and force a single, biased pov over all of the Israel-Palestine area in Wikipedia, which truthfully, has lost all neutrality due to the above conduct. ABHammad ( talk) 08:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
@
ABHammad: the real issue here is a group of veteran editors pushing an anti-Israeli viewpoint on Wikipedia, promoting controversial views as encyclopedic facts, and threatening those who oppose them.
If this is the real issue, then evidence, please. At the moment it appears from the evidence presented that it may be yourself that is engaged in
WP:CPUSH rather than others. Perhaps comment at the same time re
User talk:ABHammad#1R breach about your edit blatantly promotes false information
and
User talk:ABHammad#Enough already about You are going against consensus and the principles of collaborative editing. Taking it to my talk page instead of collaborating on the talk page instead feels like bullying and harassment
.
Selfstudier (
talk)
09:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
The current consensus version seems to match the POV of ABHammad and האופה.Apart from the fact that I had valid reasons for reversion, that's not even true. On the weaponization matter, the current state is as I wished it (that is the link is included, not excluded, and I helped workshop the RFC that led to that conclusion). So, please, find another rabbit to hunt. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
@ ABHammad: you say that It seems that Levivich's complaint is simply pointed at those who disagree with Levivich's point of view. - but this complaint is about you, instead of pointing to anyone else who disagrees with Levivich. Your response fails to dispel the notion of WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct. starship .paint ( RUN) 14:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
@ Sean.hoyland: is absolutely right, in fact the offsite recruitment on Israel subforums has already occurred multiple times in the past week. See [106], [107] and [108]. starship .paint ( RUN) 23:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Also agree with
KoA, I am not at all impressed by the jumping to conclusions and doubling down by
Vegan416 at this venue. In the very same week where the International Court of Justice
ruled that Israel had "an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities and to evacuate all settlers
", Vegan416 is claiming that settlement disbandment means the dismantling of Israel.
starship
.paint (
RUN)
23:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Vegan416 stressed that it is worth considering [Levivich's] motivations when evaluating the case. Even after the strikeouts, Vegan416 stresses that Levivich is apparently trying to push his ... anti-Zionist views, and still discussing whether Levivich does wish for the end of Zionism. What is the relevance of this? Sanctioning ABHammad (or not) will not end Zionism, does not dismantle Israel, and does not dismantle Israeli society. Separately, let's say editor X has a personal view that there should be a one-state solution to the conflict, combining all inhabitants of Israel, Gaza, Jerusalem and the West Bank as equal citizens of one new state: Isgazjerubank. Should editor X never file reports at WP:AE then for being 'anti-Zionist'? starship .paint ( RUN) 15:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
As a general point, beliefs resembling the "If anything..." statements by ABHammad are essentially conspiracy theories. They are corrosive. They are used to rationalize all sorts of non-constructive and destabilizing activities in the topic area like sockpuppetry, edit warring, tag-teaming, non-compliance with ECR, email canvassing, vote stacking and off-site campaigning and recruitment. They are self-sustaining beliefs used to justify rule-breaking that have a long association with disruption here. They should probably be actively suppressed.
@ Selfstudier: with regard to the Zionism dispute in particular, I think the evidence @ Vegan416 collected makes it pretty clear that we have diverged from a neutral viewpoint. It is surprising to see Zionism referred to as colonization, in wikivoice with no qualifications, when there's a long list of notable scholars who take issue with that characterization.
That said, NPOV issues should be fixed through consensus-building discussions, and ABHammad's recent contributions do seem to involve too many reverts with too little discussion. Since this is recent and their broader history seems more constructive, I think they should be given a chance to change this behavior, but it seems they may need a reminder that edit warring is not limited to 1RR/3RR. — xDanielx T/ C\ R 18:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
@ Iskandar323: yes the 1RR violation Selfstudier pointed out is clear, but it involved a ~21 hour gap, and ABHammad self-reverted when it was pointed out. Seems like a timing error. Regarding the other instance, I'm not sure this would be considered a revert? It seems like any deletion might technically fit under the broad definitions of reverts given in WP:3RR and elsewhere, but at least there wasn't a specific recent change being reverted here (the closest seems to be this, almost a month ago). — xDanielx T/ C\ R 21:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I object to this AE request as I had objected to the AE request against Nishidani. In this case, it is clear that Levivich is just trying to push his extreme eliminationist anti-Zionist views, exemplified by his statement "We are witnessing the last gasps of Zionism".
Not involved in the subject, and honestly I've been at odds with Levivich with behavioral things in the past, but it's apparent to even me that Vegan416's comments here towards Levivich are pretty inflammatory as a sort of potshot/aspersion or an attempt at a rhetorical gotcha as Levivich describes it. That does come across to me as Vegan416 being at least one editor raising the temperature in this topic. There's a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude in those comments, and usually CT designations are meant to help keep such editors out of controversial areas.
Even I know referencing Zionism is a charged word that anyone editing the topic should know better than to use it loosely in rhetoric. Maybe Levivich's "last gasp" comment had a tinge of a POV to it or was a little forumy, but the way Vegan416 grabbed onto the Zionism mention to make a leap to assertions on dismantling Israel and asserting that in a "Maybe I'm wrong, but . . . [insert potshot here]" style comment without evidence really rubs me the wrong way. I do feel like you'd have to have a chip on your shoulder to make that jump from what I'm actually reading in Levivich's comments. If Levivich was actually doing what Vegan416 claims (I sure don't see it), then they would have presented actual evidence of it and how that has affected the topic rather than the type of assertions I'm seeing here. Instead, Vegan's comments to ScottishFinnishRadish leave me concerned they'd just double down in the future instead. KoA ( talk) 22:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
We are not supposed to be discussing our own or others personal political beliefs, but I for one find outrageous the McCarthyist I notice that you still do not say explicitly that you do not wish for the end of Zionism
, and further object to the idea that wishing such a thing is somehow either relevant or incompatible with participation here. So what if he does wish that? You ever wonder why we have no Palestinian editors in this topic area? Things like this.
nableezy -
23:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
"... Iranian rhetoric like that one 'Israel Drawing Its Last Breaths, Says Iranian Commander Behind Foiled Drone Attack.'" Subtle! Dan Murphy ( talk) 23:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
It is not only Levivich that believes that we are witnessing the beginning of the end of the Zionist project. In a recent article in New Left Review, Israeli historian Ilan Pappé argues that "We are witnessing a historical process – or, more accurately, the beginnings of one – that is likely to culminate in the downfall of Zionism." Vegan416 is entitled to disagree with this assessment, but not to smear and delegitimise anyone who shares it. And, for the avoidance of any doubt, I do wish for the end of Zionism and the dismantling of Israel's colonial settler society. It is a perfectly legitimate belief. RolandR ( talk) 00:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Aside from the general behaviours mentioned, including a lot of reverting, aren't there two very specific instances of very clear and very knowingly performed WP:1RR breaches on templated pages after the user was aware? The first is mentioned by SelfStudier, and the second is visible in the two diffs provided by Levivich, both on the 23 June. That appears to be two blatant breaches in as many months. Iskandar323 ( talk) 17:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
the real issue here is a group of veteran editors pushing an anti-Israeli viewpoint on Wikipedia, promoting controversial views as encyclopedic facts, and threatening those who oppose themis enough to get me there, as that is plain battleground editing. I just think we need to be holding everyone to these standards. This is not an uncommon type of statement, and the topic is full to the brim with battleground mentality. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Discussion about Vegan416
|
---|
|
the real issue here is a group of veteran editors pushing an anti-Israeli viewpoint on Wikipedia, promoting controversial views as encyclopedic facts, and threatening those who oppose themis bad, and that should certainly be part of any warning, but if you want action on
your edit blatantly promotes false informationthen, again, that will need to be enforced topic-wide. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:18, 26 July 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
These two edits were made after I notified him about the 500/30 rule 16:13, 25 July 2024 , I also asked him to self revert which he declined: [112]
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.
According to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles the article should be - "reasonably construed" as in -
Is Or Sasson the related to the Arab-Israeli conflict? If so, then Judo, Clothing and any other article on Wikipedia is related in one way or another to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If one follows your edits, it is clear as day that you are trying to erase as many as possible mentions of Israel. As seen, you reverted my edit to Ori Sasson and Doms in Israel although both Articles are not related to the Conflict. Also, you tried to frame Hanadi Jaradat, a known terrorist, using the ambiguous term "militant" while her actions were objective terrorism.
Being disputed doesn't change the fact that it is de-facto a part of The State of Israel and under its sovereignty, so he was born in Israel. Again, whether disputed or not, it is a fact that relates to him.
If his request is accepted, then each and every namespace with the mention of Israel/Palestine and Any Arab country or any other country which had interaction with the region or the entities above and every object, physical or not, geographical or not, that is directly or indirectly related to any of the mentioned entities above should be under the Extended confirmed protection.
Regarding Selfstudier - It doesn't seem like you appear to be in an objective position to recommend.
One more in what is turning into a procession of non EC editors contesting without merit WP:ARBECR restrictions. The talk page discussion following the awareness notice is in addition sufficient reason for a sanction. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
[w]e must treat newcomers with kindness and patience... Make the newcomer feel genuinely welcome, not as though they must win your approval in order to be granted membership into an exclusive club) or not enough (should for example, the user simply be WP:NOTHERE). But an indef TBAN here feels odd to me; the principle behind indef TBANs is that the user is productive except in one area, but we don't really have that here if all the edits are in one area. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:36, 27 July 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
KlayCax has started several different discussions and made actual edits pushing for third party candidates (especially RFKJR) to be added to the infobox. The July 21st discussion literally was started while discussions on the matter were already ongoing ( [114] [115]). They have continuously been trying to add Kennedy to the infobox, even though the matter has already been resolved [116] [117]. The addition of Cornell West went against the ballot access and polling criteria spelled out in the consensus for state infoboxes. We should not have to have a discussion with KlayCax every month explaining that there is no consensus for adding Kennedy at this stage. They have been told their behavior is disruptive, but nonetheless they have persisted. Prcc27 ( talk) 00:03, 28 July 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.
To summarize:
Finally, many editors in mid-July stated that the issue needed to be revisited. The other aspects are clearly taken out of context and not rules violations. KlayCax ( talk) 07:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
:It may also be noted that KlayCax has been warned in the past on other articles for deceptive editing and has been given a “Final Warning” by ScottishFinnishRadish. Just FYI and my two cents for the time being.
Qutlooker (
talk)
04:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
KlayCax has made disruptive POV edits at the 2024 US presidential election page as discussed. They have also been disruptive on other articles related to the election, including JD Vance, edit warring over some obscure political views. See Talk:JD Vance#Should there be a summary of Vance's ideology in the lead? for discussion they started after they were reverted. Also they made accusations of vandalism when a user removed information that should have been removed, and "apparent accident deletion/vandalism from WP: SPA. (?)". They also tried to add to Donald J. Harris and Kamala Harris that Donald Harris was involved in Marxism, which fails verification and is a significant POV term used by the right wing in today's US political situation. [119] [120] See Talk:Kamala Harris#Removal of Shyamala Gopalan and Donald J. Harris from the lead for more of that discussion. – Muboshgu ( talk) 16:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
I was
topic-banned from AE (16 December 2016) as a result of making a comment warning about a sockpuppet of
Cirt (
Sagecandor), who was at the time massively weaponizing AE in order to take out political opponents (among other things).
In retrospect, I would be surprised if anyone were to maintain that this was not a case of shooting the messenger. Since that time, some people have expressed their distaste for Wikipediocracy. Perhaps if en.wp's behavioural "courts" were less likely to sanction whistleblowers, there would be less reason for folks to show diffs of misbehaviour off-wiki rather than trusting internal processes.
Today, with significant evidence to present in an active AE case, I find myself still gagged by this decision protecting former administrator Cirt's Sagecandor sockpuppet.
Though I did request on 24 February 2019 that the admin remove the sanction, they declined to do so and, as such, I have scrupulously respected that AE ban by not participating in any cases to which I was not a named party. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 13:48, 28 July 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
The image is clearly an upload from social media: Different crops were posted on e.g. X which could not be derivatives of the image uploaded to Commons. Since this is a copyright violation, I removed it as exempt from 1RR. Oleg Yunakov disputed it, and after deciding my exemption reason was invalid, proceeded to revert and violate 1RR.
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 info was provided here. Those continuous actions start to look like a harassment. With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk) 20:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
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:
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
---|---|---|---|
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland | Motion | ( orig. case) | 21 June 2024 |
Amendment request: Extended confirmed restriction | none | none | 25 July 2024 |
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) | none | none | 26 July 2024 |
Motion name | Date posted |
---|---|
Historical elections | 21 July 2024 |
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 to case requests. 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.
|
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:
Initiated by My very best wishes at 23:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
My editing restrictions were based on the findings of fact about my comments during the arbitration. This FoF tells about two issues.
The topic ban always struck me as one that shouldn't have happened. There simply wasn't anything in evidence that MVBW had problems in the topic area; and topic-bans are meant to be preventative, not punitive. I can understand why it happened (ArbCom needs to maintain decorum during cases and has a limited toolbox to enforce that) but if they felt something was necessary, just the interaction ban, ejecting MVBW from that specific case during the case, or at most restrictions on participation in future ArbCom cases where MVBW isn't a party would have made more sense, since those were the actual issues it was supposed to resolve. Beyond this specific instance, I feel that ArbCom might want to consider how they'll enforce decorum in cases in the future and what sort of sanctions someone can / ought to get for issues that are solely confined to the case pages itself like this - partially it feels like the topic ban happened because there wasn't a clear precedent of what to do, so they just tossed MVBW into the bin of the same sanctions they were leveling at everyone else even if it didn't make sense. Possibly more willingness to eject unhelpful third parties from specific cases while the case is in progress could be helpful. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Note that My very best wishes is also subject to an overlapping AE topic ban (
WP:AELOG/2023#Eastern Europe: My very best wishes is topic-banned from the areas of World War II in Eastern Europe and the history of Jews in Eastern Europe, and is warned that further disruption may lead to a topic ban from the whole Eastern Europe topic area, without further warning. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she
)
* Pppery *
it has begun...
15:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Acknowledging courtesy ping. To nitpick procedurally, the TBAN I enacted was an AE-consensus sanction, not an individual one. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive319 § My very best wishes. Courtesy pings to @ ScottishFinnishRadish, Courcelles, Valereee, Seraphimblade, and Guerillero, who participated in the admin discussion there. I personally have no opinion on whether to lift the sanction. -- Tamzin[ cetacean needed ( they|xe) 22:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I remain of the opinion that MVBW should not be under an iban. Would someone kindly be able to explain to me what preventative purpose it is serving? Any "don't do this again" message (both to MVBW and people in the future who might consider disruptively defending someone at ArbCom) has surely been received at this point, so I don't see it remaining serving as a further deterrent. House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 23:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
My very best wishes' has minimized his history with Piotrus and Volunter Marek.
My very best wishes (then known as User:Biophys) cooperated off wiki with Piotrus and Volunteer Marek (then known as User:radeksz) in order to influence articles' contents and to get opposing editors sanctioned. Details are available at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list. The case resulted in Eastern Europe's listing as a contentious topic for Arbitration enforcement.
TFD ( talk) 17:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Elinruby, I did not say that MVBW's involvement in the Eastern European Mailing List (EEML) should affect the current application. I said that MVBW "has minimized his history with Piotrus and Volunter Marek." He wrote above, "I never met them in "real life", but I interacted with them on many pages in various subject areas." No one asked him to bring up his previous relationship, but if he does, it should be the whole truth. TFD ( talk) 20:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Elinruby, there is no reason I should disclose my interactions with you since it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.
MYBW wrote, "I never met them in "real life", but I interacted with them on many pages in various subject areas." Do you think that is a fair and accurate reflection of their previous interactions?
My advice to you and to myself is to let the administrators decide what signficance if any it has.
TFD ( talk) 23:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
I want to say that MVBW is an invaluable contributor, particularly when it comes to Russia and Russians. I deeply regretted losing contact with him because of the topic ban, given that I was still trying to straighten out the pages about collaboration with Nazi Germany and was talking to Polish editors about that.
I was a party to the Holocaust in Poland Arbcom case. as best I can tell for much the same reasons as MVBW; we were editing in the topic area of the war in Ukraine at the same time as VM and Gitz6666. I protested the topic ban at the time. MVBW is interested in the war in Ukraine, and not Poland. However the history of the region is such that part of Ukraine was once part of Poland (to vastly oversimplify) and I completely understand both that it would be difficult to respect a topic ban and that it would be necessary to break ties with me because of it.
If it is relevant to anyone's thinking I strongly support removing this topic ban. I do not think the interaction ban is necessary either; he seems pretty serious about addressing the Committee's concerns. Elinruby ( talk) 18:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
EEML is relevent and "I never met them in "real life", but I interacted with them on many pages in various subject areas." appears to be misleading at best and a lie by omission at worst. EEML is definitely relevent here, if MVBW doesn't want to speak about it thats fine but their refusal to address the relationship in a forthright and honest manner has to count agaisnt them. If they can't be honest about their connections I have no faith that those connections aren't going to continue influencing their behavior going forward. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:19, 23 July 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.
Remedy 5.1 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic ban on My very best wishes) is repealed. Remedy 5.2 (the 1-way interaction ban) remains in effect.
For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 2 arbitrators abstaining, 4 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) are repealed.
For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.
My very best wishes' topic ban from World War II in Eastern Europe and the history of Jews in Eastern Europe, imposed under the Eastern Europe contentious topic procedures, is repealed.
For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Initiated by 142.113.140.146 at 09:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I
concur RMs are ERs.
WP:Edit requests are requests for edits to be made to a page where editors cannot or should not make the proposed edits themselves
. This social concept is independent of technical details of which template is used. A RM requests to edit the title. An AfD requests an edit to blank the page or replace its contents with a redirect.
A 2023 "clarifying" motion actually repealed some other clarifying language. This may "contain a loophole". A repeal of a RM prohibition clause is taken to be license to participate in such RMs.
We need to settle this once and for all. Request 1 approves, while request 2 forbids (along with AfDs), edits to RMs.
TLDR
WP:BANEX
|
---|
|
obtain consensus first. Consensus forming discussions can be a necessary component of edit requests and some level of consensus (between submitter and the processor of any successful request) is needed to process any edit request. 122141510 ( talk) 15:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
For those limited by time I believe my statement is effectively expounding on what I already said.
I don't buy the idea that a move request should not be considered as a type of edit request. Any change to an article is an edit. The idea there's a difference between between a WP:RM and a WP:ER is an argument based on bureaucratic pedantics than on shared reality. While there may be practical reasons for the bureaucratic decision to not consider an RM a type of ER, editors should always refuse to accept as immutable reality any status quo which begs credulity to a wider audience. User:ScottishFinnishRadish's "thems the breaks" rationale comments were effectively the opposite, which is why I expressed frustration in our exchange. (I want to make it clear that I have no animus towards ScottishFinnishRadish. I appreciate that no one seems to have been left with an impression of, or suggested, otherwise.)
Regarding the fact I mentioned systemic bias, I'm accusing this interpretation of WP:ECR of introducing unintentional systemic bias, in at least two ways;
The policies as you are interpreting them can be taken as a bureaucratic manoeuvre by which a minority of editors can determine the topic of any contentious article – sure, the protection will eventually end, but not without shifting the WP:ONUS onto those who prefer a different title to build consensus, under more difficult conditions as consensus must be achieved from a much wider pool of editors.I am not sure I can expand on this while remaining relatively succinct – this is about as concise as I can get here, as I think the implications of this are wide-ranging and existential for Wikipedia as a project.
I'd like to note that at time of posting my reverted contribution is still the only non-comment contribution which has been made to the RM in question [9]. This can be taken any number of ways, of course, but I don't mean to suggest "this specific article doesn't merit ECR in the first place" so much as it's not obvious to me what the policy is intending to guard against here. I do not see any benefit to the interpretation of ECR as enforced by ScottishFinnishRadish, and have outlined in broad strokes what I believe are the drawbacks. 122141510 ( talk) 22:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Everyone is supercool with an uninvolved IP opening a request for clarification in violation of ARBECR? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 12:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussionsthat is directly related to ARBPIA. This is your court so your rules, but this looks related to ARBPIA to me. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 14:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
RMs are not edit requests as they usually require consensus, something that is especially true for contentious topics (WP:EDITXY is pretty clear on this and the fact that edit requests shouldn't be used to attract attention to a post, even in the name of finding consensus). M.Bitton ( talk) 09:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
It used to be that consensus forming discussions (AfD, RFC, RM etcetera) were specifically listed out and excluded but that was amended in favor of the current restriction to straightforward edit requests a la WP:EDITXY. Consensus forming discussions are self evidently not edit requests. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I initially intended to warn the IP editor about ARBPIA, but then realised that the subject requires discussion anyway, and so their input is indeed constructive and should be appreciated. I wouldn't be comfortable with shutting the discussion now for formal reasons, as it's not really about PIA but about ECR, and it needs to be had.
The purpose of ECR is to let experienced editors work on controversial articles in relative peace by minimising disruption caused by inexperienced editors, socks, SPAs, etc. The idea is only to let them make a simple suggestion ("Change X to Y" per sources) where the response would be positive (Yes, done) or negative (No, not done). It was not the idea to let them start lengthy discussions on whether they like article titles or not. I'm all for making it absolutely clear that move requests, deletion requests, merge requests, etc., are disallowed under ARBECR. — kashmīrī TALK 15:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Wide-ranging discussions involving heated debates between users are, quite bluntly, entirely separate from a simple "please change this" edit request - I think it's fairly clear that RMs are not mere edit requests, and should be subject to the same ECR protection as virtually everything else in the area.
There's already been enough off-wiki coordination/pressure/etc from various groups relating to the ARBPIA area. The last thing any of us want is a loophole allowing brand-new SPAs, POV-warriors, and/or sock farms from Twitter, Reddit, news comment sections, and so on to flood the topic area with even more WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct than it already has. The Kip ( contribs) 15:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
While initiating RM discussions are not "please change X to Y (because Z)" edit requests, such discussions do not encompass all requests to change the title of a page. In other words, there should be no prohibition on a non-EC editor making a uncontroversial request to move a page. For example if the current title contains a typo or has become outdated or ambiguous. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
122141510, for interest, I don't find your 'introducing unintentional systemic bias' #1 argument very compelling. Enforcement of ECR is a stochastic process. It relies on other stochastic processes. There is a lot of randomness in there in terms of editors, their watchlists, their editing times, their alertness and personal biases etc. It doesn't seem like the kind of system that can easily produce systematic bias and I have not seen any evidence that it is doing that. The notion that ECR enforcement by an individual is partly a function of the individual's bias is speculation. It's an empirical question and I don't think there is currently an evidence-based reason to give it much credence. But if we assume it's true, then a solution is to increase the population size of the people actively enforcing ECR. Sean.hoyland ( talk) 08:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
122141510, as for argument #2, this argument doesn't appear to have a dependency on ECR. It seems more like a description of how Wikipedia works for everyone. Articles and content acquire a kind of inertial mass over time. A single extendedconfirmed editor may create a new article with a title that includes a biased or contentious word. There is no real barrier or cost for this. You see it a lot in the PIA topic area. The new article instantly acquires a kind of inertial mass as soon as the editor hits save. After that, it takes work to move it or change its state. Editors choose how much energy they are willing to expend on the effort. It isn't easier for some and harder for others to become extendedconfirmed or change an article. Everyone is in the same boat. Sean.hoyland ( talk) 10:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I have to say that it is not obvious to me, now that we have several years of data and experience that post-dates the imposition of ECR, whether non-extendedconfirmed users should be able to do anything at all, including submitting edit requests, in contentious topic areas with ECR restrictions. Do the benefits sufficiently outweigh the costs? I have no idea. Constructive edit requests certainly exist. It seems like the kind of question that probably has an answer to be found somewhere in the data, and it would be useful to know the answer. It would be interesting to see how many edit requests are successful, how many are declined, how many talk page comments are simply reverted, how often people search for ways to tunnel through the EC barrier, often it seems because getting to the other side is mission critical for them etc. Sean.hoyland ( talk) 16:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
ScottishFinnishRadish, only ~100+ ECR reverts for me. ~700+ for Selfstudier. Lots of noise from new users, not so much signal it seems. I do wonder sometimes what would happen if all articles (or maybe half for an A/B test) with "ArbCom_Arab-Israeli_enforcement" or "Contentious_topics/Arab-Israeli_talk_notice" templates (without relatedcontent=yes) were extendedconfirmed protected, including the talk pages, and edit requests from non-EC editors were either not allowed or had to go through Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit. It's probably not a great situation when I find myself wondering whether the very experienced sockpuppets of topic banned users my computer suggests are there, might actually be an asset compared to all the noise. Sean.hoyland ( talk) 17:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Zero0000, it's true that quite a few edit-requests are perfectly reasonable and involve correction of minor errors. What I have observed is that, in practice, people do not revert corrections of minor errors by IPs and non-extendedconfirmed editors even when they make the change themselves. They get a pass, another somewhat complicated and subjective aspect of the current system. Anyway, to clarify, I'm not proposing anything specific because I have no idea how best to achieve what ECR is supposed to achieve. But being in a position to make evidence-based decisions about restrictions might help. As for "it would not reduce the number of non-edit-requests that should be reverted", I'm biased towards simple technical solutions with no subjectivity or wiggle room, so in my mind, a ban on talk page edit-requests or a centralization of edit requests would need to be accompanied by talk pages being extendedconfirmed protected. Sean.hoyland ( talk) 03:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with a non-EC adding an edit-request like "Fix the bad spelling in the title". However, an RM is a formal process to determine consensus on the result of a move proposal. The request and the resulting consensus are two different things. In addition, disruption in formal processes is more damaging than ordinary discussion. For these reasons, the ban on non-EC participation in RMs should remain. Zero talk 09:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Quite a few edit-requests are perfectly reasonable and involve correction of minor errors. The proposal to ban edit-requests altogether would be counterproductive. Not only would it mean that non-EC editors have no legal way to notify us of such errors, but it would not reduce the number of non-edit-requests that should be reverted. Zero talk 02:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
The exceptions to limited bans cover this clarification request ("addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself" [emphasis in original]; also "asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban"). If we're going to start telling new users that they're not even allowed to ask if they're allowed to ask whether or not they're allowed to edit, then let's just archive WP:ANYONE now and acknowledge that it was good almost-quarter-century run of having principles.
As for the actual clarification request: I would like to suggest that it's not violating the restriction for a non-EC editor to request a move and explain their rationale, as it's not really functionally different from making an edit request with a rationale, at least up to the point that the requester publishes the request. However, once they have made the request then ARBECR dictates that they cannot participate in any subsequent discussion, and of course they cannot add comments to requested moves started by other editors. This is meant to be a comment on how the restriction is worded, not whether or not it's a sensible approach whatsoever to impose this labyrinth of contradictory restrictions on new editors just because they're new. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 00:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
ECR should prohibit RMs because new editors are unlikely to start helpful RMs, and likely to start time-wasting ones. ECR exists at least in part because despite good intentions, new editors are unlikely to know enough about editing to edit in this topic area non-disruptively. Levivich ( talk) 01:17, 27 July 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.
Initiated by Selfstudier at 13:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
To match WP:ECR (Idk if it is worth changing both to link to namespace 1).
@ Barkeep49: @ Zero0000: The discussion here refers (at the bottom)
@
Zero0000: Not only. See Barkeep49 statement at the relevant AE complaint (still open) However, I will note that the contradiction between the "topic area" as defined and what areas ECR do not allow for is present. And so in a different scenario I would say this user shouldn't have to eat a block that could then be escalated if there are future transgressions. However, given that there was other conduct leading to a topic ban that factor doesn't seem to apply here.
To be clear, my opinion is that ECR, being later, should take precedence but that's just me.
Selfstudier (
talk)
08:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
And now, the same technicality being referred to by another editor. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
@ Zero0000: I am only "proposing" that this "technicality" which has not been identified by myself, be fixed up, I'm just initiating the paperwork, to the extent anyone thinks that it is required. What I want is that it not be available as a defense by non EC editors, currently two of them mentioning it, and I suspect more inbound if left unresolved. If there is another way to clean it up, I'm all ears. And @ Doug Weller: has now raised the question indirectly as well https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&curid=21090546&diff=1237149351&oldid=1236465052#Why_does_ARPBIA_allow_userspace_as_an_exception? Selfstudier ( talk) 12:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
@ Sir Kenneth Kho: Many thanks for clarifying my inept proposal. For me, though, ECR should function like a tban, "any edits that relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict (broadly construed) anywhere on Wikipedia" Selfstudier ( talk) 17:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
There is a small mismatch between the area of scope and ECR and perhaps arbcom wants to fix that. Perhaps it doesn't. I'm not sure why I am involved in this case. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Can we have this request actually explained, please?
I don't see any contradiction between "userspace" in "area of conflict" and "talkspace" at ECR. They serve different purposes.
One place says that the "area of conflict" does not extend to userspace (which implies that it does extend to talkspace). ECR indicates that talkspace has some differences in restrictions compared to article space. Both these make sense and can be true at the same time. We definitely do not want the "area of conflict" to exclude talkspace, because then the ECR restrictions on talkspace would not apply to it.
Or maybe I missed the point entirely. Zero talk 15:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
As I see it, Definition of the "area of conflict" defines which pages and edits are subject to editing restrictions in ARBPIA, and WP:ARBECR says what those restrictions are. I don't see any contradiction there, and it seems to me that changing "userspace" to "talkspace" in the former would remove article talk pages from the area of conflict and disable all the restrictions there. Zero talk 02:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
To editor Selfstudier: The contradiction you claim to exist actually does not exist. Let's start at ECR:
The Committee may apply the "extended confirmed restriction" to specified topic areas." So now, we ask, what is the "topic area" in the case of ARBPIA? That sentence has a footnote:
The current topic areas under this restriction are listed as having the "extended confirmed restriction" in the table of active Arbitration Committee sanctions." So we click on that link and find a big table. ARBPIA is near the end. It says:
The entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted; edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace." (my emphasis) So in fact ECR agrees with WP:Contentious_topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Definition of the "area_of_conflict" that edits in userspace are not in the ARBPIA "topic area". Where is the contradiction?
I'll also repeat (please answer): You seem to be proposing that "edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace" at WP:Contentious_topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Definition of the "area_of_conflict" be changed to "edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of talkspace". Why does that make any sense? You want to remove talkspace from the topic area?? Zero talk 11:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
To editor Selfstudier: If arbcom wish to undo the exclusion of userspace from the ARBPIA topic area, that's their decision, but your proposal does much more than that. Zero talk 12:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Maybe this revert I did a couple of days ago is a useful test. Is the revert valid or invalid under the remedies? Sean.hoyland ( talk) 12:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
This amendment request came to my attention after @ Doug Weller: pointed it to me, I believe I can provide some clarity for the arbitrators.
I think there is an error in the request as pointed out by @ Zero0000: the intended request is likely "remove exception of userspace" instead of "change userspace to talkspace" in WP:PIA, and the opposing side would be "add exception of userspace" to WP:ECR.
The answer would depend on whether arbitrators intended WP:ECR A(1) to overrule or uphold WP:PIA 4(B), if there is an answer, we are done.
If arbitrators did not consider it at all, the strongest argument for the initiating side would be WP:BROADLY, as the broadest possible thing would be no exception to userspace.
I'm arguing in favor of the opposing side, the strongest argument would be WP:UOWN, as userspace is traditionally given broad latitude too, it seems that WP:ECR and WP:UOWN should have their own jurisdiction, and on the balance WP:ECR should not be excessively broad. Sir Kenneth Kho ( talk) 16:50, 28 July 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.
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. |
Following a request for action based on evidence of alleged harassment and canvassing, the Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the topic area of historical elections. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:
For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Proposing -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Consensus was clearly achieved in favor of not removing elements of county pages (presidential election results) that had been there for decades and are clearly a key aspect of understanding a county. I'm not sure what this is about other than someone having sour grapes that the universe of users who care deeply about this aspect of county pages and believe it’s a critical aspect (even if prose might be preferable). DemocraticLuntz ( talk) 22:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I have seen an increasing problem with off-wiki canvassing (largely done via Twitter) since the middle of last year. This has largely taken the form of editors posting on Twitter about disputes they are having on Wikipedia (or about matters they disagree with), which in turn has driven both edit warring and canvassed contributions to discussions. In several cases, these canvassed contribution have changed the direction/outcome of the discussions (for example this discussion, the consensus of which completely changed after off-wiki activity started on 15 June).
In addition to the canvassing effect, the off-wiki activity has often involved personal attacks and sometimes veered into harassment. In one recent incident, an editor who edits under their real name had their details posted on Twitter by another editor who was using Twitter to canvass people to an American politics dispute. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative environment, but from a personal perspective, it is extremely hard to maintain civil collaboration with editors that you are aware are saying things about you on their social media accounts that would fall under WP:NPA if posted here. When raising off-wiki personal attacks with one editor, rather than apologise, they brushed it off, saying it was "separate" to their Wikipedia work, while another editor who became involved in the dispute after seeing the posts on Twitter saying such attacks were fine "as long as it does compromise your privacy or safety".
If there is to be a case on this issue, I personally would like to see three outcomes:
Number 5 7 21:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm phoning in from what The Good Captain aptly called the "peanut gallery", to comment about the aspect of hybrid cases that concerns whether or not ArbCom should assume the role of the filing party. I've been thinking about this, and I think I can offer a distinction that may be useful, and points in this case to yes, you should accept this case.
There's a pretty well-established consensus that ArbCom should consider cases where (a) the community has said there's a problem, and where (b) the community cannot solve it ourselves. Here, there have been some ANI threads, and there appear to be private communications from community members to ArbCom, in which there is private evidence of concerns about harassment and/or canvassing (per discussion here). That satisfies the criteria of (a) the community asking for ArbCom help, and (b) the community being unable to process private information. Also, and this is key, it might well be awkward to expect the editor(s) who feel harassed to come forward in public and be the filing party. So it makes good sense for ArbCom to "self-file".
In contrast, hybrid cases didn't work so well in the Polish Holocaust case, where ArbCom initiated the case after an outside publication criticized Wikipedia. (Strictly speaking, there had also been requests from the community, including a declined case request, but those never reached critical mass.) What prompted ArbCom to initiate that case was ArbCom's reaction to outside pressure. A couple of months later, ArbCom granted ECP to an account representing an outside group, in order for that account to file a case, but it turned out that that person was wasting everyone's time.
So the distinction I want to make is that it's good for ArbCom to self-initiate a case when there is private evidence, particularly of harassment, and members of the community have provided this private evidence, but might suffer further harassment if they filed the case themselves. I would want ArbCom to consider such cases, including this one. But when the pressure to start a case is coming primarily from outside the community, ArbCom should generally wait for a community request to come forward (or private evidence from the community about harassment), instead of ArbCom jumping ahead themselves. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
The purpose of this statement is to respond to the Arbitration Committee's note that it is welcoming thoughts about the Tropical Cyclones case and other "hybrid" cases involving both public and private evidence. A principle that should be followed in this case, as in other cases involving off-wiki coordination, is that transparency is the best policy when possible, and that ArbCom should consider whether evidence that is received as private evidence must be kept private, or may be made public. Private evidence should be made public unless there is a sufficient reason for keeping it private. Valid reasons for keeping evidence private include preserving the identity of pseudonymous editors and fear of reprisals or adverse consequences. As much information as is possible should be made public, in order to maintain the trust and confidence of the community. Since Twitter / X is an open social medium, discussions on Twitter / X should be entered into public evidence, although the identity of pseudonymous editors should be preserved.
I have not been involved in the discussions of historical elections. However, I infer from the mention of county pages that one of the issues is similar to one of the main issues with tropical cyclones, which is at what level of detail should information be broken out. One of the issues with tropical cyclones was that discussion of when individual articles were in order about specific storms was being suppressed, based on a previously established consensus. If there are issues about keeping or merging county pages, it is necessary that they be discussed openly, on article talk pages, or by deletion discussions, not off-wiki. Guidelines for when separate articles are in order at the county level or other specific level should be agreed to by consensus when possible.
Transparency is the best policy whenever possible, and ArbCom should make as much evidence public as is possible. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
My guess is that the lack of commentary from the parties is due to one of a few things:
Just because no party is discussing it doesn't mean there's not a controversy. ArbCom has run cases where parties refused to give opening statements (or participate full-stop) in the past. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this motion as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should open the proposed case or provide additional information.
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}}.
|
Salfanto blocked indef ( diff) as a regular admin action (no AE enhancements). El_C 12:08, 16 July 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 Salfanto
Salfanto appears to have chronic issues with the WP:VERIFY, WP:DUE and WP:SYNTH policies. Aside from the above cited diffs, their edits on Human wave attack where they persistently inserted content about Ukraine using human wave attacks using Russian state media sources and synthesis of other references (such as in this diff) showcase their disregard to policy in favour to I suppose WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS about them percieving that content about Russia is not ″neutral″. The eagerness to continue using poor sources like social media to claim the deaths of individuals even after receiving a block is not only disturbing but to me indicates that this editor should not be editing in this topic, if at all about living people in general.
Discussion concerning SalfantoStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Salfanto
Statement by JDialaIt is indisputable that Salfanto's sourcing does not meet our standards. It should be noted however that Salfanto is a rather new editor, with the overwhelming majority of his edits having taken place in the last eight months. Salfanto's conduct strikes me as trout-worthy and a learning experience for him, and a glance at his edit history indicates that notwithstanding some mistakes he is here to build an encyclopedia. The topic area suffers from more serious issues like persistent low-level POV pushing. I think there's a structural problem in that low-level POV pushing by established editors is far harder to identify and prosecute than comparatively minor mistakes by inexperienced editors like ocassional 1RR or RS violations. The former is ultimately more pernicious to the project. JDiala ( talk) 11:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by ManyAreasExpertI'm still waiting for the editor to explain their edits here Talk:Bogdan Khmelnitsky Battalion#Assessed by the ISW . Another edit, where they add ambiguous This claim was assessed by Institute for the Study of War on 7 November 2023 , is [11] . ManyAreasExpert ( talk) 21:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by SaintPaulOfTarsusThe user has continued to make misleading and dubiously-sourced edits within the topic area in just the past few hours, asserting
here that several foreign fighters killed in action were the commanders of units supposedly called the "1st Rifle Platoon", "2nd Rifle Platoon", and "3rd Recon Platoon", despite no such term existing in the cited articles. I can only conclude that these alleged military unit names are either completely fabricated by Salfanto or perhaps drawn from some "phantom" source the user for whatever reason chose not to reference; the association of the deceased individuals with the alleged military units remains unexplained in either scenario. In the same edit the user asserts that Ukraine's 22nd Brigade was a "belligerent" in the 2023 counteroffensive citing an article that claimed the brigade was, at the time of publication, Result concerning Salfanto
|
Aredoros87 indefinitely topic banned from AA2. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 04:29, 15 July 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 Aredoros87
Despite still having an indefinite restriction requiring to obtain consensus to readd any content that has been reverted in AA or related conflict articles, Aredoros87 has violated it. In addition, they've been POV pushing and removing sourced content. Vanezi ( talk) 09:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Aredoros87Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Aredoros87
Statement by (username)Result concerning Aredoros87
|
JoeJShmo ( talk · contribs) is topic banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict for 6 months and 1000 edits by ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk · contribs). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:19, 19 July 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 JoeJShmo
JoeJShmo, a non-XC editor, has been warned about CT restrictions in force on certain pages related to Palestine–Israel conflict. In particular, they were explained that they can only place edit requests [30]. As can be seen, they immediately opposed. Even though several established editors and an experienced admin Doug Weller tried to reason with them, they didn't report or sanction them after a repeated violation, this effort has unfortunately failed – JoeJShmo continued to post on a CT-restricted page Talk:Mossad. I have no idea what is needed to stop them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AJoeJShmo&diff=1234354020&oldid=1233536763
Discussion concerning JoeJShmoStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by JoeJShmo(note: I've just seen the word limit. I'm not sure if I'm over it and I apologize if I am. I'm not sure what to do as I believe all the info below is highly relevant.) The statement above by user Kashmiri is grossly misleading. I'll explain my position. It started when I was unaware of the EC rules and edited in a page relating to the Israeli Palestine conflict (I edit on a small phone where the warnings on top of many pages are automatically collapsed), and I got a warning on my talk page shortly after, so from there on I was aware of the EC rule. Shortly after I posted on a talk page in this topic, being unaware the rules extended to all discussions, and got a warning about that too, so at this point I was fully aware of the rules (see here where I request clarification on the rules in another topic before posting). Later I posted an edit request in the Mossad page which someone responded to. I responded in turn, making what to me was a logical assumption that the exception to edit request includes responses to editors who seemed unaware of the exact arguments behind the edit request. Thereafter, Kashmiri posted a fairly rude warning on my talk page, saying something like 'are you asking to get sanctioned' (it may be relevant to note here that this user may feel some sort of animosity towards me after I had previously called out that they had not apologized for something anti-Semitic they had said, see my talk page under 'warning'). I explained the ambiguousness of the rules and questioned this user's lack of assuming good faith. I went on to raise this topic in the village pump policy page ( WP:VPP#Talk pages of contentious topics), and the responses so far have been mixed, and a couple people have brought forth the idea that perhaps clarifying the request or responding to an editor who hasn't understood the request would be allowed. I think it relevant to mention that the request I was making in the Mossad page was a purely grammatical request, quite un-controversial (a matter of whether common usage in regards to the Mossad is to use the word 'the'). In light of the fact that the EC rule was obviously intended to prevent provocative and uninformed contribution in controversial areas (some editors in the above linked discussion even pointed to this for the reason to be strict in this matter), and the ambiguousness of the policy, I though it logical that any editor with common sense would not take issue with the discussion I continued to have at the Mossad talk page. I would classify my discussion there as clarifying my position (a matter of using the word 'the') and bringing further sources to my position. If any editor had taken a clear position against my proposed request that I didn't think stemmed from a simple misunderstanding and a possible lack of clarity on my part, I don't think I would have responded further. In conclusion, I believe there's a certain amount of good faith inherent in the decisions of when to make issues out of policy (for a more obvious example, I'd point to non EC editors who respond 'thank you' to an editor that implemented their request), and unfortunately, I don't think Kashmiri has demonstrated that good faith here today.
Statement by SelfstudierAlso see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Talk pages of contentious topics. I also made an effort with defendant at their talk page and rapidly concluded that nothing would help. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by NableezyJust noting that while this was open the user added another extended confirmed violation here. nableezy - 13:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by TarnishedPathGiven the manner in which the editor has obtained XC, I think a sensible solution would be its revocation until they have 1,000 mainspace edits and a broadly construed TBAN until that time. TarnishedPath talk 11:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning JoeJShmo
|
Dadude sandstorm ( talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked as an ordinary admin action by Callanecc ( talk · contribs). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:58, 18 July 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 Dadude sandstorm
I gave the CT awareness alert after noticing a problematic history of edits in the topic area, including Special:Diff/1234357835. Today's edit to Destiny (streamer) linked above left me speechless, though. Dadude sandstorm is incapable of contributing productively to this topic area and possibly beyond. DanCherek ( talk) 02:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Dadude sandstormStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Dadude sandstormMy sincere apologies for this lapse in discipline. I got annoyed seeing the dismissive comment, which when added to the fact that the comment was from an IP user, incensed me. I offer to redact that comment/edit it to be more conducive to maintaining a good atmosphere on wikipedia. On the other hand, I strongly feel those changes to the Destiny article + the edit summary are nothing better than what such a subject deserves. Having openly outed himself as a quasi-fascist by supporting political assassinations and murder within a day, the article needs to be more strongly worded. while i do admit the (objective correct but inappropriate) mention of 'cuck' was the wrong thing to do, the rest of the changes were but simply stating his actions from the last 24 hours.
Statement by Isabelle BelatoI'm surprised they weren't indef blocked after this egregious edit. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 02:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Dadude sandstorm
|
JoeJShmo's appeal is declined. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:02, 28 July 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 JoeJShmoI request the topic ban to be lifted.
Statement by ScottishFinnishRadishThe topic ban was placed because the editor clearly does not have the necessary experience and grasp on WP:PAGS to contribute constructively in the topic area. I brought up the technical 1RR violation as it demonstrated that they immediately jumped into removing, even after being reverted, prose that they disagreed with. They did this claiming NPOV violations, and demanding that their edits not be reverted [37] [38]. We don't need more stonewalling POV warring going on in the topic area. The discussion at User talk:JoeJShmo#WP:CLAIM demonstrates a lack of a clear understanding of WP:PAGS which is necessary to edit constructively in this incredibly contentious topic. This comes after a block and a topic ban for behavior in the topic. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 11:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by SelfstudierNo comment on the sanction itself other than I think appellant largely brought this on themselves. As I have indicated before, think we ought to try and avoid that non EC editors end up at this board at all, that's not going to help someone new get to grips with the way WP works, not in a CT. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by JoeJShmoStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by BilledMammalA major issue in the enforcement of the ECP restriction is the inconsistency. Whether editors are sanctioned for violating it appears to be entirely based on chance. For example, several months ago I reported IOHANNVSVERVS and Osps7 for gaining ECP primarily through ECR violations, but no action was taken. (To date, neither appear to have made more than 500 edits outside the topic area.) Since then, I've declined to report other such editors, as I've been under the impression that it is not seen as an actionable issue. I think we need to be consistent in how we treat editors who gain extended-confirmed status through violations; either we sanction all of them or none of them, and if we are going to sanction them we impose comparable sanctions. Personally, I think some level of sanction is appropriate, but it needs to be consistently applied, as to do otherwise would be unfair for editors like JoeJShmo. See also Redefinition of ECP and Redefining ECP, which are about how to address good-faith edits that work towards extended-confirmed status; the rough consensus of the community appears to be that we should not adjust ECP to make it more difficult to work towards, and nor should we fault editors for working towards it unless they do so through bad-faith edits. BilledMammal ( talk) 00:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by TarnishedPathThe sanction looked very measured to me given that the editor had not long before received a block for 31 hours for NPA. This topic area needs less disruption, not more. 1000 extra edits and 6 months will give the editor sufficient time to understand WP policies and guidelines. In that way the sanction is purely preventative. TarnishedPath talk 11:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by The KipWhile I do agree with BM’s concerns about applying ECR in a consistent manner (and/or redefining it), I concur with those above in that I really don’t see an issue with this particular sanction. As I recently told another editor, hopefully the TBAN results in moderated/refined behavior that they need to develop before any potential return to the area. The Kip ( contribs) 17:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by berchanhimezFrom what I've seen, there is no consensus whatsoever on what even counts as gaming EC. And that seems to be the crux of this topic ban - a belief that the editor "gamed" EC and is still not ready, so it is being "reset" to basically start counting over. While I appreciate administrators are given wide latitude to impose sanctions for Arbitration Enforcement purposes, I do not believe such a "reset of EC" is in line with current lack of consensus on what gaming is (or even if it's a problem to begin with). That said, I don't see any reason that, given the edits after the appellant reached automatic extended confirmed being applied, that a regular topic ban (indefinite or time limited), without a number of edits, for a specific topic area would not be appropriate. I realize that this may be contradictory - I don't believe a "until you redo extended confirmed requirements" topic ban is something that should be applied - yet I also think that a regular topic ban shouldn't be avoided just because the user recently got extended confirmed. There is also the question of what the "extra" restrictions of edit count and time frame mean for appeals. Is it intended that the appellant in this case can't appeal it before 1000 total edits and 6 months? Is it intended that appeals before that time should just be declined, or looked at more carefully? Is it intended to automatically expire at that time, and who is responsible for "assessing" the 1000 edits and 6 months criteria to decide if it's expired? What if the user gets to 900 edits, creates 3 new articles in other contentious topic areas (that they aren't topic banned from) without any issue whatsoever? Best to just make it a regular topic ban, either time-limited or indefinite - and let the user follow normal appeal processes as anyone else if/when they feel they have shown their competence enough to get it removed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 18:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Result of the appeal by JoeJShmo
|
Tobyw87 topic-banned indefinitely by ScottishFinnishRadish. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 07:55, 23 July 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 Tobyw87
Violates WP:AGF, WP:NPA, casts aspersions. Quotes below. starship .paint ( RUN) 12:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Tobyw87Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Tobyw87I did not personally attack anyone and if my statements are construed that way, that is my mistake. This is a very contentious issue and there are obviously many different valid perspectives in the literature and in media and all should be reflective on Wikipedia. I believe the pro-Hamas perspective is currently dominating on Wikipedia and I am entirely free to think this and say it if I want to. In fact, there have been many media articles citing Wikipedia's overt anti-Israel bias---
here,
here,
here, and
here to cite just a few. The editor who submitted this request is the one who is engaging in personal attacks---assuming that I am not in good faith, assuming that I do not know how Wikipedia works, etc. I don't believe I've attacked them even one time and yet I am the one being sanctioned for it. I believe the mission of Wikipedia is important and as this is a community that operates on the basis of consensus, I will respect any ban going forward and cease all editing on Israel/Palestine topics. I am extremely biased by my own admission and if the community judges I am not capable of editing Wikipedia adequately according to its standards I will 100% accept this judgement. Thank you. Tobyw87 ( talk) 20:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by KashmiriThans @SP for filing. Yeah, the editor doesn't seem to understand what Wikipedia is and how it works, esp. re. sourcing. I'm not personally offended, and my Jewish friends will have a good laugh, but both the attack and the user's editing history suggest that the user may be incapable of editing objectively in the Palestine–Israel topic area. — kashmīrī TALK 12:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Tobyw87
|
Dtobias is indefinitely topic banned from gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:05, 26 July 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 Dtobias
(Diffs below) Anytime there’s a discussion involving an article that falls under GENSEX topics, User:dtobias comes in and more or less just rants about the evil transgenders and trans activists in a way that contributes nothing to the article’s talk page and only serves to espouse his views on trans rights devoid of any relevance to editing the article. He also frequently either directly accuses or through a paper thin pretense accuses other editors of being trans activists without the wiki’s best interests at heart. This includes saying that properly gendering trans people in line with MOS:GENDERID is comparable to a Muslim user forcing his religious beliefs on Wikipedia, and accusing users of trying to discount any source that’s not PinkNews even when the sources in question are very demonstrably unreliable and/or employ the use of anti-trans slurs. On at least one occasion, he has also made edits to GENSEX articles themselves, referring to trans women using he/him pronouns.
[39] Unasked for rant about how
[40] Irrelevant
WP:NOTFORUM tangent about how
[41] In response to being told to follow
MOS:GENDERID, he goes on a whole
WP:NOTFORUM thing about [42] Another WP:NOTFORUM thing about “trans ideology”, this time comparing trans people to people who think they’re Napoleon and are thus entitled to all of Europe. [43] WP:NOTFORUM ramble about the rise of “transgenderism”. [44] WP:NOTFORUM rant about the term “TERF” + comment saying that trans men are women. [45] WP:AGF WP:DIS reply saying that asking editors to follow MOS:GENDERID is comparable to a Muslim editor forcing his religious views on Wikipedia. [46] Accusing editors of trying to POV-push for saying that a source that used slurs to refer to trans women wasn’t reliable. EDIT: Sorry, the slur one was below. This one was just basic AGF POV accusation. I have no idea why I got the two mixed up or why I thought they were the same response. That’s on me for sloppy proofreading, sincerest apologies. [47] Ditto. I think he just copied and pasted his response. [48] Editing a trans woman’s BLP to refer to her by he/him pronouns in violation of MOS:GENDERID.
[49] Him being taken to ANI previously over his behavior on GENSEX topics [50] The thread being moved to AE, where he was given a caution over his behavior.
The AE thread linked above.
EDIT: Sorry if I’m at all awkward at this! This is my first AE thread.
Discussion concerning DtobiasStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DtobiasI stand by the truth (as I see it) of everything I said, if not necessarily the civility or appropriateness in context. This subject brings out the worst in everybody it touches. I will abide by whatever decision the community makes in this action. I do hope that those who look into this matter look at the behavior of all people involved in the discussions the above diffs were part of, and not just at mine; those articles might be better off if a number of people whose views are too strongly held and expressed to make them well-suited for dispassionate encyclopedia creation would step back a bit. To mention a few of the above diffs where further comment is needed: [52] was in response to a comment saying that pretty much all of the UK news media should be dismissed as unreliable because people have criticized their "transphobia". [53] I wasn't "ranting" there, just quoting part of an academic paper being discussed, where it mentions the definition and usage of "TERF", which had also been under discussion on that page. [54] I wasn't "being told to follow MOS:GENDERID" because I hadn't violated it; the discussion was between others, which I jumped into with my own two cents (er, "tuppence" since it was about a UK subject) about how being compelled to use language based on one side of a controversial issue limits ability to debate. This doesn't mean that I would ever intentionally break Wikipedia style rules, whether or not I agreed with them; see below for where I self-reverted when I accidentally did so (much later than this debate). [55] An error on my part which I immediately corrected, the final edit here being, as of this writing, the most recent edit on that page, so nobody has yet found it in need of further correction or alteration. *Dan T.* ( talk) 01:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC) There does seem to be a double standard in effect, where people on one side of the issue can use all the forceful and biased language they wish usually with no repercussions, but the other side needs to walk on eggshells. Even saying that there's such a thing as transgender ideology gets you in trouble, as seen in comments below. *Dan T.* ( talk) 05:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC) Re LightNightLights: No, nobody should be banned from commenting about a subject due to their personal characteristics or beliefs. But if they are using hyperbolic, violent rhetoric aimed at others of opposing beliefs, one can call into question their objectivity and professionalism on the subject and their suitability for rendering judgment as an uninvolved party. I note the rhetorical technique of using analogies (in this case black people to trans people) to make a point; this is a very commonly done tactic, and one that I'm being rebuked for here. Re Abecedare: I appreciate your comments even if they're not always what I want to hear. Neat username! Interesting user page quote! Seems like you truly practice what you preach, given your user history as far as I've looked shows absolutely no involvement in culture warring on any side. Can you explain why my use of analogies is "inapt" while others' may not be? I'm not just being argumentative here; I actually care what you think. *Dan T.* ( talk) 19:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by FirefangledfeathersI don't think Dan's statement that he does "not necessarily [stand by] the civility or appropriateness in context" is enough here. The quoting of 1984 was pretty egregious. At the time, we were discussing a tough issue. An activist was objecting to the circumstances surrounding an OB/GYN doctor who is a trans woman. The article text had described the doctor as "a male transgender doctor", which I objected to. Another editor proposed a change to "a transgender doctor", with other participants objecting to that. Finding the right option in these disputes is tough work. So many good editors have been pushed away due to the acrimony in this topic area. We deserve people that won't step into a tough content dispute to contribute only a newspeak accusation. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 02:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by starship.paintCertainly Dtobias needs to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric and stop with all of the comparisons. But Snokalok's report needs refinement - misreading a quote (that was literally put in Template:Quote frame) as a "NOTFORUM rant" and noting an instance of misgendering that was literally corrected by Dtobias one minute later. Meanwhile the "Unasked for rant" was a direct response to an editor who called for sources such as The Times, The Guardian and the BBC to be found to be not generally reliable on the topic based on the reporting of sources including the LGBT magazine Them. starship .paint ( RUN) 04:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by BilledMammalI agree with Starship.Paint. To add to what they said, Snokalok said that Dtobias accused Snokalok also says that Dtobias said In this discussion, the context to which is a situation where both sex and gender need to be identified in order for a reader to make sense of the content, Snokalok argues, somewhat uncivilly at times ( BilledMammal ( talk) 06:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by berchanhimezInitial comment hidden because I incorporate/clarify it below I do not agree with the statement by Isabelle below that the use of the terms "transgender ideology" or "transgenderism" should have any impact on this case, nor should they be surprising. They are perfectly valid terms for the things they describe. To be clear, I am fully supportive of those who believe that the solution to feeling as if they were assigned the wrong gender at birth being given all possible forms of treatment for the mental health problems they have because of those feelings. But that does not mean that there is not an "ideology" surrounding it in a political sense, nor does it mean that "transgenderism" is an inaccurate term to describe the concept of someone being transgender. A quick review of the diffs presented by the originator of this complaint - I agree that dtobias may be able to tone down the rhetoric a bit. But let's not ignore the fact that the originator claimed User:dtobias comes in and more or less just rants about the evil transgenders and trans activistswithout providing any evidence of dtobias calling them "evil transgenders". It seems that the originator may need to take a step back and look at their own rhetoric - legitimate discourse regarding transgender topics cannot be stifled just because someone disagrees with another, and misrepresenting what someone else has said should not be tolerated. To be blunt, I think dtobias may have been correct in saying Trans activists are prone to throwing tantrums when they don't get their way- this appears to be one of those tantrums intended to get an editor that is disagreed with removed from the topic area. In reviewing the "not a forum" complaints made, there seems to be none that are using the talk page as a forum - those comments (from my view) are all relevant to the discussions they were made in. Ultimately, this appears to be based primarily on one content dispute that the originator of this complaint feels strongly about. I have no opinion (at this time) as to whether the issues raised (over MOS:GENDERID and how we refer to transgender persons in their articles) merit further/wider discussion - but I do not see any action being needed here aside from perhaps a warning to the originator that disagreeing with someone does not mean you can ignore their opinions and try to silence them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 08:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (Sweet6970)I see that
Isabelle Belato has said Comment about the final diff quoted in the complaint above [57]. Without any input from anyone else, this was corrected one minute later. [58]. This edit is part of a series of edits, which started with an edit where ‘Wadhwa’ was misspelled as ‘Wradha’ [59]. This was corrected in the next edit, one minute later: [60]. Dtobias is obviously correcting himself as he goes along. To present the final diff in the complaint out of context is misleading, to put it politely. I think that Snokalok needs a formal warning not to behave like this. Sweet6970 ( talk) 16:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC) @ Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist: Yes, of course, someone who endorses threats of violence against anyone is not fit to sit in judgment on them. And your comparison of feminism to racism is inflammatory. Sweet6970 ( talk) 19:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC) @ Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist: Regarding your latest comment: WP:NOTFORUM, and this kind of discussion is particularly unsuitable to be held at AE. Sweet6970 ( talk) 20:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist
transgender ideology and gender ideology link to Anti-LGBT rhetoric and Anti-gender movement, where more context is given for RS considering these offensive and deliberately vague buzzwords seeking to portray trans people as ideologically driven. Now, DTobias knows these are offensive phrases, because at
WP:NOQUEERPHOBES (an essay written by myself and other queer editors to address rampant queerphobia on Wikipedia) they objectd on the grounds that: It's only after these kinds of phrases are noted to be offensive they argue things like There's also snide comments arguing the mainstream media is unduly saying trans people are marginalized: I was thinking of giving this user a warning on his talk page following this comment at LGB Alliance: And there is a clear
WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality evidenced in comments like: This user repeatedly, in every situation they can, deliberately uses provocative and offensive language - comparing trans people to people who think they're Napolean, religious beliefs, Authoritarian Orwellianism, and generally using language that frames being transgender as a powerful ideology. To all those who think this isn't problematic - would you argue the same if he repeatedly referred to the "homosexual agenda" and "gay activists calling everything homophobic" and called being questioned on such language evidence of Newspeak? WP:RGW behavior for sure. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 16:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by IsaidnowayI do agree with the statement by Isabelle below that the use of the terms "transgender ideology" or "transgenderism" should have an impact on this case. And it doesn't "surprise me" either because it is terminology (ideologically-motivated ... ideological objective), Dtobias frequently uses when editing in this CT area. Two of the diffs below are three years old, but it shows a pattern, along with the multiple diffs above.
From a personal viewpoint, I believe that comment in the first diff is insulting and denigrating Transgender Women. See also: "Gender ideology". Isaidnoway (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by LightNightLightsRegarding this edit: Sure thing. Let us ban black people too from speaking about racism just because they are anti-racism. LightNightLights ( talk • contribs) 17:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by LunaHasArrivedI also think it is relevant that on multiple of these edits (1,3,5) Dtobias was reminded about notforum, and yet decided to ignore this policy and continuing in this behaviour. Also all of these diffs are from within the last month, they seem to have done 50 contributions in this time period so this controversial editing contributed a significant part of their recent editing history. LunaHasArrived ( talk) 10:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Dtobias
|
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).
Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2024#c-ScottishFinnishRadish-20240721163500-User_sanctions_(CT/A-I),
logged at
16:34, 21 July 2024
I was about to post the following to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee when I saw I got banned. I'll post it here instead:
(topic: ECR)
"The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed"
I'm guessing it's so broad that it includes user talk pages, and going even further, that it would allow a non-admin to remove an edit on another user's talk page (even though that would clash with WP:UP#OOUP). (To be very clear, I absolutely did not add that comment on Joe Roe's page knowingly violating ECR rules)
Just found out the original block wasn't even applicable under the ARBPIA decision to begin with:
Definition of the "area of conflict"
4) For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing
- the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and
- edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")
- Passed 6 to 0 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Emdosis ( talk) 22:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Just noting that I have indefinitely topic banned them as well, for WP:BATTLEGROUND editing and casting aspersions. [73] [74] [75] ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 14:02, 22 July 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.
Emdosis made a comment that was in violation of ECR, it was reverted, and they reinstated despite discussion on their talk page saying they shouldn't. Reasonable block.
Emdosis, if I can give you some advice; this sanction is the equivalent of a slap on the wrist. I suggest that you withdraw this appeal and instead accept it. In a week, when it expires, you can return, make 200 productive edits and non-trivial edits in other topic areas, and join this topic area if you are still interested in doing so. Don't earn yourself a more permanent sanction over trying to contribute to the topic area a couple of weeks early.
I realize you're only 100 edits from ECR, but I suggest 200 just to avoid any controversy in the future over the edits you made within the topic area contributing to you earning ECR.
In addition, I see you cited WP:IAR; for inexperienced editors, IAR is a trap that will only get you in trouble. Eventually you'll realize when it's appropriate to apply, but for now, especially within contentious topic areas, I suggest you stay well clear of it. BilledMammal ( talk) 20:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I know that in theory all blocks are appealable but I will say it again, non EC editors arguing about EC restrictions should not have any standing at this board. By the time we are done here, the block will have run its course. Selfstudier ( talk) 21:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion, the belief that userspace edits are not in the ARBPIA topic area is well founded. Not only was the exclusion of userspace passed 6-0 by the arbcom decision that defined the topic area, but it is stated explicitly in the list of topic areas which is specified at WP:ARBECR (footnote 2) as the topic areas which are covered. Once userspace is deemed outside the topic area, even phrases like "all pages in the topic area" do not include it. Zero talk 12:19, 28 July 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
"Tag-team" edit warring at Zionism over "colonization", a continuation of the edit war discussed above at #Nishidani, which closed July 11 ("A bunch of socks/compromised accounts blocked. Further action related to anything here will need a separate report."). I won't repeat what I wrote there at #Statement by Levivich (Nishidani).
Other examples at other articles:
Since July 8, ABHammad has made five edits [94], they are:
Previous UTP discussions between us (permalinks): Jun 12, Jun 13, Jun 24 ( response). Levivich ( talk) 03:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Re Vegan's comment: I don't think Vegan misunderstood me, I think they are intentionally twisting my words. If I say "We are witnessing climate change", it obviously doesn't mean I support climate change. And nobody would confuse "settlement dismantlement" for "the dismantling of Israel". Unfortunately this is not the first time Vegan has tried to "catch" me with this kind of rhetorical gamesmanship, recently at Talk:Zionism: 1, 2, 3. This may be because I accused Vegan of bludgeoning last month. Levivich ( talk) 21:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
one veteran editor here explicitly wishes for the end of Zionism and the dismantling of Israeli societyis another example of the rhetorical gamesmanship/twisting of words, now aimed at another editor. Nobody said anything about dismantling Israeli society. Equating "the end of Zionism" with "dismantling of Israeli society" is no different than equating "settlement dismantlement" with "dismantlement of Israel." Basically it's an attempt to equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism. Sound familiar? I believe it's nothing other than trolling/baiting. The point is to derail this report and take the focus off of the reported editor by creating new endless arguments, just like Vegan's bludgeoning behavior I complained about earlier. Admins, please put a stop to this. Levivich ( talk) 13:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
the dismantling of Israel's colonial settler societyis not the same thing as
the dismantling of Israeli society. There is more to Israel than settler colonialism; neither Israel nor any other Jewish homeland needs to be a colonial settler society. Calling for an end to Israel's occupation and apartheid is not the same thing as calling for an end to Israel itself. Levivich ( talk) 15:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
And still above all you simply refuse to say the simple words "I don't wish for the end of Zionism". Why is that?I'm of course not going to take this bait, my political beliefs are irrelevant, but I should not have to put up with this in response to filing an AE complaint. Levivich ( talk) 16:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
restoring important, well sourced material by scholars and leading analysts, meanwhile it removed the sentence "Both Israel and Palestine frequently accuse the other of planning to commit genocide", which was sourced to Damien Short's book about genocide and an article in Journal of Genocide Studies (so it removed scholarship, not restored it). Meanwhile, it restored content about the opinions of Doron Weber and Mosab Hassan Yousef, neither of which are scholars or leading analysts. It restored the lead image to the blood-stain image (which was a change made on Jul 16 by Nice4What). It changed "Hoffman opined that Hamas has consistently maintained genocidal intentions" to the less neutral phrasing "Hoffman underscored the significance of the 1988 Hamas charter, asserting that Hamas has consistently maintained genocidal intentions and demonstrated a lack of interest in "moderation, restraint, negotiation, and the building of pathways to peace." It added content about the Hamas Charter to the Background section. There were a bunch of changes in addition to that, it seems. It's a tough diff to read, I'm not sure entirely if everything was "restored" or if some of it was new. Levivich ( talk) 16:02, 28 July 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.
I cannot speak for the other editors mentioned, but I can confirm that I have no connection with them. It seems that Levivich's complaint is simply pointed at those who disagree with Levivich's point of view. This is evident from his recent, deeply inflammatory comment that we are "We are witnessing the last gasps of Zionism", and their edit warring, both leaving no question regarding their views on the IP conflict.
Levivich's complaint appears to be exactly over what Wikipedia expects its editors to do: debate content, and when it comes to POV-pushing, reject the disruptive addition of controversial information forcibly added without, or before consensus is reached. The reverts Levivich shows were made in response to:
If anything, the real issue here is a group of veteran editors pushing an anti-Israeli viewpoint on Wikipedia, promoting controversial views as encyclopedic facts, and threatening those who oppose them. This complaint is just the latest in a series of attempts to silence opposition and force a single, biased pov over all of the Israel-Palestine area in Wikipedia, which truthfully, has lost all neutrality due to the above conduct. ABHammad ( talk) 08:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
@
ABHammad: the real issue here is a group of veteran editors pushing an anti-Israeli viewpoint on Wikipedia, promoting controversial views as encyclopedic facts, and threatening those who oppose them.
If this is the real issue, then evidence, please. At the moment it appears from the evidence presented that it may be yourself that is engaged in
WP:CPUSH rather than others. Perhaps comment at the same time re
User talk:ABHammad#1R breach about your edit blatantly promotes false information
and
User talk:ABHammad#Enough already about You are going against consensus and the principles of collaborative editing. Taking it to my talk page instead of collaborating on the talk page instead feels like bullying and harassment
.
Selfstudier (
talk)
09:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
The current consensus version seems to match the POV of ABHammad and האופה.Apart from the fact that I had valid reasons for reversion, that's not even true. On the weaponization matter, the current state is as I wished it (that is the link is included, not excluded, and I helped workshop the RFC that led to that conclusion). So, please, find another rabbit to hunt. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
@ ABHammad: you say that It seems that Levivich's complaint is simply pointed at those who disagree with Levivich's point of view. - but this complaint is about you, instead of pointing to anyone else who disagrees with Levivich. Your response fails to dispel the notion of WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct. starship .paint ( RUN) 14:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
@ Sean.hoyland: is absolutely right, in fact the offsite recruitment on Israel subforums has already occurred multiple times in the past week. See [106], [107] and [108]. starship .paint ( RUN) 23:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Also agree with
KoA, I am not at all impressed by the jumping to conclusions and doubling down by
Vegan416 at this venue. In the very same week where the International Court of Justice
ruled that Israel had "an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities and to evacuate all settlers
", Vegan416 is claiming that settlement disbandment means the dismantling of Israel.
starship
.paint (
RUN)
23:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Vegan416 stressed that it is worth considering [Levivich's] motivations when evaluating the case. Even after the strikeouts, Vegan416 stresses that Levivich is apparently trying to push his ... anti-Zionist views, and still discussing whether Levivich does wish for the end of Zionism. What is the relevance of this? Sanctioning ABHammad (or not) will not end Zionism, does not dismantle Israel, and does not dismantle Israeli society. Separately, let's say editor X has a personal view that there should be a one-state solution to the conflict, combining all inhabitants of Israel, Gaza, Jerusalem and the West Bank as equal citizens of one new state: Isgazjerubank. Should editor X never file reports at WP:AE then for being 'anti-Zionist'? starship .paint ( RUN) 15:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
As a general point, beliefs resembling the "If anything..." statements by ABHammad are essentially conspiracy theories. They are corrosive. They are used to rationalize all sorts of non-constructive and destabilizing activities in the topic area like sockpuppetry, edit warring, tag-teaming, non-compliance with ECR, email canvassing, vote stacking and off-site campaigning and recruitment. They are self-sustaining beliefs used to justify rule-breaking that have a long association with disruption here. They should probably be actively suppressed.
@ Selfstudier: with regard to the Zionism dispute in particular, I think the evidence @ Vegan416 collected makes it pretty clear that we have diverged from a neutral viewpoint. It is surprising to see Zionism referred to as colonization, in wikivoice with no qualifications, when there's a long list of notable scholars who take issue with that characterization.
That said, NPOV issues should be fixed through consensus-building discussions, and ABHammad's recent contributions do seem to involve too many reverts with too little discussion. Since this is recent and their broader history seems more constructive, I think they should be given a chance to change this behavior, but it seems they may need a reminder that edit warring is not limited to 1RR/3RR. — xDanielx T/ C\ R 18:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
@ Iskandar323: yes the 1RR violation Selfstudier pointed out is clear, but it involved a ~21 hour gap, and ABHammad self-reverted when it was pointed out. Seems like a timing error. Regarding the other instance, I'm not sure this would be considered a revert? It seems like any deletion might technically fit under the broad definitions of reverts given in WP:3RR and elsewhere, but at least there wasn't a specific recent change being reverted here (the closest seems to be this, almost a month ago). — xDanielx T/ C\ R 21:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I object to this AE request as I had objected to the AE request against Nishidani. In this case, it is clear that Levivich is just trying to push his extreme eliminationist anti-Zionist views, exemplified by his statement "We are witnessing the last gasps of Zionism".
Not involved in the subject, and honestly I've been at odds with Levivich with behavioral things in the past, but it's apparent to even me that Vegan416's comments here towards Levivich are pretty inflammatory as a sort of potshot/aspersion or an attempt at a rhetorical gotcha as Levivich describes it. That does come across to me as Vegan416 being at least one editor raising the temperature in this topic. There's a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude in those comments, and usually CT designations are meant to help keep such editors out of controversial areas.
Even I know referencing Zionism is a charged word that anyone editing the topic should know better than to use it loosely in rhetoric. Maybe Levivich's "last gasp" comment had a tinge of a POV to it or was a little forumy, but the way Vegan416 grabbed onto the Zionism mention to make a leap to assertions on dismantling Israel and asserting that in a "Maybe I'm wrong, but . . . [insert potshot here]" style comment without evidence really rubs me the wrong way. I do feel like you'd have to have a chip on your shoulder to make that jump from what I'm actually reading in Levivich's comments. If Levivich was actually doing what Vegan416 claims (I sure don't see it), then they would have presented actual evidence of it and how that has affected the topic rather than the type of assertions I'm seeing here. Instead, Vegan's comments to ScottishFinnishRadish leave me concerned they'd just double down in the future instead. KoA ( talk) 22:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
We are not supposed to be discussing our own or others personal political beliefs, but I for one find outrageous the McCarthyist I notice that you still do not say explicitly that you do not wish for the end of Zionism
, and further object to the idea that wishing such a thing is somehow either relevant or incompatible with participation here. So what if he does wish that? You ever wonder why we have no Palestinian editors in this topic area? Things like this.
nableezy -
23:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
"... Iranian rhetoric like that one 'Israel Drawing Its Last Breaths, Says Iranian Commander Behind Foiled Drone Attack.'" Subtle! Dan Murphy ( talk) 23:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
It is not only Levivich that believes that we are witnessing the beginning of the end of the Zionist project. In a recent article in New Left Review, Israeli historian Ilan Pappé argues that "We are witnessing a historical process – or, more accurately, the beginnings of one – that is likely to culminate in the downfall of Zionism." Vegan416 is entitled to disagree with this assessment, but not to smear and delegitimise anyone who shares it. And, for the avoidance of any doubt, I do wish for the end of Zionism and the dismantling of Israel's colonial settler society. It is a perfectly legitimate belief. RolandR ( talk) 00:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Aside from the general behaviours mentioned, including a lot of reverting, aren't there two very specific instances of very clear and very knowingly performed WP:1RR breaches on templated pages after the user was aware? The first is mentioned by SelfStudier, and the second is visible in the two diffs provided by Levivich, both on the 23 June. That appears to be two blatant breaches in as many months. Iskandar323 ( talk) 17:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
the real issue here is a group of veteran editors pushing an anti-Israeli viewpoint on Wikipedia, promoting controversial views as encyclopedic facts, and threatening those who oppose themis enough to get me there, as that is plain battleground editing. I just think we need to be holding everyone to these standards. This is not an uncommon type of statement, and the topic is full to the brim with battleground mentality. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Discussion about Vegan416
|
---|
|
the real issue here is a group of veteran editors pushing an anti-Israeli viewpoint on Wikipedia, promoting controversial views as encyclopedic facts, and threatening those who oppose themis bad, and that should certainly be part of any warning, but if you want action on
your edit blatantly promotes false informationthen, again, that will need to be enforced topic-wide. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:18, 26 July 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
These two edits were made after I notified him about the 500/30 rule 16:13, 25 July 2024 , I also asked him to self revert which he declined: [112]
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.
According to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles the article should be - "reasonably construed" as in -
Is Or Sasson the related to the Arab-Israeli conflict? If so, then Judo, Clothing and any other article on Wikipedia is related in one way or another to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If one follows your edits, it is clear as day that you are trying to erase as many as possible mentions of Israel. As seen, you reverted my edit to Ori Sasson and Doms in Israel although both Articles are not related to the Conflict. Also, you tried to frame Hanadi Jaradat, a known terrorist, using the ambiguous term "militant" while her actions were objective terrorism.
Being disputed doesn't change the fact that it is de-facto a part of The State of Israel and under its sovereignty, so he was born in Israel. Again, whether disputed or not, it is a fact that relates to him.
If his request is accepted, then each and every namespace with the mention of Israel/Palestine and Any Arab country or any other country which had interaction with the region or the entities above and every object, physical or not, geographical or not, that is directly or indirectly related to any of the mentioned entities above should be under the Extended confirmed protection.
Regarding Selfstudier - It doesn't seem like you appear to be in an objective position to recommend.
One more in what is turning into a procession of non EC editors contesting without merit WP:ARBECR restrictions. The talk page discussion following the awareness notice is in addition sufficient reason for a sanction. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
[w]e must treat newcomers with kindness and patience... Make the newcomer feel genuinely welcome, not as though they must win your approval in order to be granted membership into an exclusive club) or not enough (should for example, the user simply be WP:NOTHERE). But an indef TBAN here feels odd to me; the principle behind indef TBANs is that the user is productive except in one area, but we don't really have that here if all the edits are in one area. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:36, 27 July 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
KlayCax has started several different discussions and made actual edits pushing for third party candidates (especially RFKJR) to be added to the infobox. The July 21st discussion literally was started while discussions on the matter were already ongoing ( [114] [115]). They have continuously been trying to add Kennedy to the infobox, even though the matter has already been resolved [116] [117]. The addition of Cornell West went against the ballot access and polling criteria spelled out in the consensus for state infoboxes. We should not have to have a discussion with KlayCax every month explaining that there is no consensus for adding Kennedy at this stage. They have been told their behavior is disruptive, but nonetheless they have persisted. Prcc27 ( talk) 00:03, 28 July 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.
To summarize:
Finally, many editors in mid-July stated that the issue needed to be revisited. The other aspects are clearly taken out of context and not rules violations. KlayCax ( talk) 07:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
:It may also be noted that KlayCax has been warned in the past on other articles for deceptive editing and has been given a “Final Warning” by ScottishFinnishRadish. Just FYI and my two cents for the time being.
Qutlooker (
talk)
04:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
KlayCax has made disruptive POV edits at the 2024 US presidential election page as discussed. They have also been disruptive on other articles related to the election, including JD Vance, edit warring over some obscure political views. See Talk:JD Vance#Should there be a summary of Vance's ideology in the lead? for discussion they started after they were reverted. Also they made accusations of vandalism when a user removed information that should have been removed, and "apparent accident deletion/vandalism from WP: SPA. (?)". They also tried to add to Donald J. Harris and Kamala Harris that Donald Harris was involved in Marxism, which fails verification and is a significant POV term used by the right wing in today's US political situation. [119] [120] See Talk:Kamala Harris#Removal of Shyamala Gopalan and Donald J. Harris from the lead for more of that discussion. – Muboshgu ( talk) 16:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
I was
topic-banned from AE (16 December 2016) as a result of making a comment warning about a sockpuppet of
Cirt (
Sagecandor), who was at the time massively weaponizing AE in order to take out political opponents (among other things).
In retrospect, I would be surprised if anyone were to maintain that this was not a case of shooting the messenger. Since that time, some people have expressed their distaste for Wikipediocracy. Perhaps if en.wp's behavioural "courts" were less likely to sanction whistleblowers, there would be less reason for folks to show diffs of misbehaviour off-wiki rather than trusting internal processes.
Today, with significant evidence to present in an active AE case, I find myself still gagged by this decision protecting former administrator Cirt's Sagecandor sockpuppet.
Though I did request on 24 February 2019 that the admin remove the sanction, they declined to do so and, as such, I have scrupulously respected that AE ban by not participating in any cases to which I was not a named party. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 13:48, 28 July 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
The image is clearly an upload from social media: Different crops were posted on e.g. X which could not be derivatives of the image uploaded to Commons. Since this is a copyright violation, I removed it as exempt from 1RR. Oleg Yunakov disputed it, and after deciding my exemption reason was invalid, proceeded to revert and violate 1RR.
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 info was provided here. Those continuous actions start to look like a harassment. With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk) 20:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)