![]() | The Arbitration Committee has directed that discussion on this page must be sectioned. Unless you are an arbitrator or clerk, create a section for your comments and comment only in your own section. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC) |
![]() | This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: DeltaQuad ( Talk) & Cameron11598 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Premeditated Chaos ( Talk) & KrakatoaKatie ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
ArbCom, you have to stop doing this.
Encouraging POV-pushing SPAs (etc.) to harass pillars of the community like Curly Turkey into going overboard (which I'm not even seeing evidence he did in this case) is exactly what I was concerned about when I asked about half of you about WP:CPUSH last winter, and most of you seemed to recognize that it was a problem. Yeah, this time you don't seem to be issuing any needless permabans, which is why I intend to try to convince CT not to take this drastic step, but you have to understand that it is not healthy for the project for you to Keep. Doing. This.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
You've gone from POV-pushing SPAs (plural) to an SPA (singular).Actually, it was you who did that. I said "ArbCom, you need to stop doing this -- it's happened too many times", and in your response you asked for evidence of POV-pushing SPAs (plural) in this case, when I never said there were POV-pushing SPAs (plural) in this case. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 07:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Encouraging POV-pushing SPAs". Did you mean something else by that? ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I do not see that Arbcom has in anyway "litgate[d] content" hereYou appear to have completely misunderstood my point.
"content" has not been an issue here, only the edit-warring and such about contentYeah -- so why is this being used as a justification to push a particular content point? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 23:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
"POV-pushing
" has been the central theme of this case, even though, strictly speaking, that is a content issue, which should be resolved on an article's Talk page, while
WP:Arbitration is for "conduct disputes (i.e., not content disputes)
". The nature of the content, as fairly representing a
neutral point of view, or not, keeps arising because that is the implicit justification for Curly Turkey's conduct: "right" content excuses bad conduct. E.g.: his pushing of the {{
cite check}} template mulitple times was (by his pov) not edit-warring because he was right, while even single removals by the rest of us constituted edit-warring because we were "wrong". CT did not explicitly state this (perhaps he thought it was obvious?), but it is the simplest, most straight-forward basis I see for what he and others have argued.
The fallacy of this argument is the assumption of what is the "right", or neutral, POV. To determine NPOV we need discussion, and particularly, civil, even collegial, discussion. CT's imminent TBAN is not for what he was pushing, but his incivility in how he was pushing it. As far as I can see the proposed decision has nothing to say about the underlying content; it is entirely about conduct.
For all that some editors are complaining of civil POV-pushing, perhaps it should be made clear that an editor's assumption of NPOV does not justify uncivil POV-pushing, nor supersede the requirement of WP:Civility. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
CT's opponents are right" regarding certain complaints re conduct, but you err in stating that the opponents "
should do what they want". I do not see that Arbcom has in anyway "litgate[d] content" here (though that point is perhaps best addressed by an Arbcom); "content" has not been an issue here, only the edit-warring and such about content. That various editors (including yourself) keep harking back to "POV-pushing", which is a matter of content, begs the question of why some "pushing" – and particularly, some edit-warring – is not taken as objectionable, while pushing back is objected. I submit that such distinctions arise from considerations of content, and amount to an implicit claim that "right" content excuses bad conduct.
@ Hijiri88: I think we have prospects of a useful discussion, but (seeing as how this case is now closed) should we continue here? Or somewhere else? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I haven't abandoned this (I think there is an issue warranting discussion), just been too busy of late to get here. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | The Arbitration Committee has directed that discussion on this page must be sectioned. Unless you are an arbitrator or clerk, create a section for your comments and comment only in your own section. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC) |
![]() | This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: DeltaQuad ( Talk) & Cameron11598 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Premeditated Chaos ( Talk) & KrakatoaKatie ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
ArbCom, you have to stop doing this.
Encouraging POV-pushing SPAs (etc.) to harass pillars of the community like Curly Turkey into going overboard (which I'm not even seeing evidence he did in this case) is exactly what I was concerned about when I asked about half of you about WP:CPUSH last winter, and most of you seemed to recognize that it was a problem. Yeah, this time you don't seem to be issuing any needless permabans, which is why I intend to try to convince CT not to take this drastic step, but you have to understand that it is not healthy for the project for you to Keep. Doing. This.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
You've gone from POV-pushing SPAs (plural) to an SPA (singular).Actually, it was you who did that. I said "ArbCom, you need to stop doing this -- it's happened too many times", and in your response you asked for evidence of POV-pushing SPAs (plural) in this case, when I never said there were POV-pushing SPAs (plural) in this case. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 07:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Encouraging POV-pushing SPAs". Did you mean something else by that? ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I do not see that Arbcom has in anyway "litgate[d] content" hereYou appear to have completely misunderstood my point.
"content" has not been an issue here, only the edit-warring and such about contentYeah -- so why is this being used as a justification to push a particular content point? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 23:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
"POV-pushing
" has been the central theme of this case, even though, strictly speaking, that is a content issue, which should be resolved on an article's Talk page, while
WP:Arbitration is for "conduct disputes (i.e., not content disputes)
". The nature of the content, as fairly representing a
neutral point of view, or not, keeps arising because that is the implicit justification for Curly Turkey's conduct: "right" content excuses bad conduct. E.g.: his pushing of the {{
cite check}} template mulitple times was (by his pov) not edit-warring because he was right, while even single removals by the rest of us constituted edit-warring because we were "wrong". CT did not explicitly state this (perhaps he thought it was obvious?), but it is the simplest, most straight-forward basis I see for what he and others have argued.
The fallacy of this argument is the assumption of what is the "right", or neutral, POV. To determine NPOV we need discussion, and particularly, civil, even collegial, discussion. CT's imminent TBAN is not for what he was pushing, but his incivility in how he was pushing it. As far as I can see the proposed decision has nothing to say about the underlying content; it is entirely about conduct.
For all that some editors are complaining of civil POV-pushing, perhaps it should be made clear that an editor's assumption of NPOV does not justify uncivil POV-pushing, nor supersede the requirement of WP:Civility. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
CT's opponents are right" regarding certain complaints re conduct, but you err in stating that the opponents "
should do what they want". I do not see that Arbcom has in anyway "litgate[d] content" here (though that point is perhaps best addressed by an Arbcom); "content" has not been an issue here, only the edit-warring and such about content. That various editors (including yourself) keep harking back to "POV-pushing", which is a matter of content, begs the question of why some "pushing" – and particularly, some edit-warring – is not taken as objectionable, while pushing back is objected. I submit that such distinctions arise from considerations of content, and amount to an implicit claim that "right" content excuses bad conduct.
@ Hijiri88: I think we have prospects of a useful discussion, but (seeing as how this case is now closed) should we continue here? Or somewhere else? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I haven't abandoned this (I think there is an issue warranting discussion), just been too busy of late to get here. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)