Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests
A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.
To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.
This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.
Please make your request in the appropriate section:
- Request a new arbitration case
- Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
- This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
- Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
- Arbitrator motions
- Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
---|---|---|---|
Promoting Iranian government POV in Wikipedia? | 13 March 2024 | 0/0/0 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
---|---|---|---|
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing | Motion | (orig. case) | 27 February 2024 |
Amendment request: GamerGate | none | (orig. case) | 12 March 2024 |
Amendment request: Gender and sexuality | none | (orig. case) | 13 March 2024 |
Amendment request: India-Pakistan | none | (orig. case) | 18 March 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Requests for arbitration
Use this section to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. This page is for statements, not discussion.
|
Promoting Iranian government POV in Wikipedia?
Initiated by 182Line (talk) at 12:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Proposed parties
- 182Line (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Ali Ahwazi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Ghazaalch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Iskandar323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- MarioGom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Contacted WMF
Statement by 182Line
Was told to post this report here by the Wikimedia Foundation.
The Times raises many questions in How Wikipedia is being changed to downgrade Iranian human rights atrocities (paywalled), reprinted in The Australian.[7] Here is a concise version:
Brief Overview
|
---|
There is a systematic removal of instances documenting human right crimes by Iranian officials on Wikipedia, accompanied by the addition of misleading information favoring the IRP (Islamic Republic Party) on the platform. From 2015 to 2022, numerous user accounts involved in such edits faced blocks due to sock-puppetry and tendentious behavior. Despite this, a new wave of more sophisticated accounts has surfaced, actively collaborating to eliminate references to human rights violations committed by IRP officials and promote a narrative aligned with the IRP across the entire platform. |
User:Ali Ahwazi
|
---|
User:Ali Ahwazi consistently utilizes sources aligned with the IRP to disseminate government propaganda:
Many more additional edits mirror this pattern of promoting Iranian government projects using Iranian government press releases: [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] etc. |
User:Mhhossein
|
---|
User:Mhhossein: In the Mahsa Amini protests Wikipedia article, Mhhossein adds:
However, the source cited for this content (this news piece) states:
This editor is an admin at Wikimedia Commons and has leveraged his influence to eliminate images depicting protests against the Islamic Republic Party (IRP): Etc. Then adds pro-government rally photos and adds content from IRP press releases / removes any content critical of the IRP: [22][23] [24][25][26][27][28][29][30] |
User:Ghazaalch and User:Iskandar323
|
---|
User:Ghazaalch and User:Iskandar323 delete huge amounts of documented human rights crimes by IRP officials:
|
User:MarioGom
|
---|
|
In essence, this is the pattern. While these mentioned editors are not an exhaustive list of those involved in the Wikipedia IRP censorship issue, they currently represent the primary contributors to these activities. 182Line (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- @MarioGom: The core of the request is that the Wikipedia editors listed here (including yourself) have contributed to the systematic removal of human right crimes committed by Iranian government officials. 182Line (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Ali Ahwazi
Statement by Mhhossein
Statement by Ghazaalch
Statement by Iskandar323
Statement by MarioGom
I have not been notified or pinged, but I acknowledge that I have seen this request. I had no time to read anything in the collapsible sections yet, but I will do it soon. MarioGom (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Just to make sure I understood the request. The core of the request is the claim that I am an
Iranian official [...] involved in the Wikipedia IRP censorship issue
? MarioGom (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC) - 182Line, an obvious experienced sockpuppet, who just gamed autoconfirmed and has been recently forum shopping this as 194.50.144.202, OutBuck, and probably 175.110.69.12 would probably have no standing to open a case request per WP:PROJSOCK. I am going to proceed with my statement anyway, since I think it would make sense for ArbCom to consider case requests if they can stand on their own merits.
- Three types of evidence are presented against me:
- That I have used my "clerk leverage" in discussions. Yet I participated in these discussions as a regular editor, as virtually any edit I make outside SPI. There is a long string of diffs, which look just fine to me. The filer claims I used misleading edit summaries in most of them, but what I see is nothing misleading. On the contrary, most are really specific about rationales (e.g. [60]). Given the MEK article has been highly controversial, I tend to use fairly detailed edit summaries. If there was any specific issue with any of these edits, I’m fairly sure it was already discussed in the talk page.
- That I use my "clerk influence" to
derail reports against pro-IRP users
. Three diffs are provided: 1) a !vote in a t-ban proposal at ANI [61], obviously done as a regular editor, and whose rationale I still stand by, 2) a comment in the same discussion [62], and 3) a comment in an SPI case [63] also offering some nuance that I still stand by. - That I
hound and request blocks
. What the filer calls hounding here is sockpuppet investigation, which I have regularly done in this area for a few years. Going into details would require way more text, but ArbCom is familiar with every investigation I have performed related to a trollfarm linked to the NCRI/MEK.
- If ArbCom would like to hear individualized explanations about any of these diffs or claims, let me know, and I will need a word limit extension. MarioGom (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Usedtobecool
I remember seeing this report before but there is nothing listed on prior dispute resolution. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Found it.[64] Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Thryduulf
I have explicitly listed all the editors 182Line named in the headers of the collapsed sections above and given the notifications that they did not. I have had no prior involvement with this and have not yet read the details of the request. Thryduulf (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- The discussion linked by UsedToBeCool was posted by user:OutBuck as their first and (apart from a subsequent markup correct) only contribution to en.wp under that username. It was reverted a few minutes later by Bbb23 [65] without explanation in the edit summary but they immediately gave OutBuck an only warning for harassment (permalink). I have no doubts that 182Line and OutBuck are the same person, but a checkuser may wish to see if they have any other accounts. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129: Especially post-Framgate if the WMF are approached with a complaint that can be handled on a local wiki they are going to tell the correspondent to use the appropriate processes on that wiki (which is what a large proportion of editors here want them to do) - whether one or more specific processes are listed I don't know. They certainly wouldn't instruct arbcom to take a case (I'm not even sure they could). A secure alt is not impossible here, but only one and it should be disclosed to the committee (if it had been then arbs would not be describing it as a throw-away account). Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't expect them to know the rules here. Which ironically is something the WMF should be instructing would-be case filers
I disagree - it is not reasonable to expect the WMF to educate every person who contacts them on the rules of individual projects. Especially if they do not disclose any usernames in their email. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Serial Number 54129
Sorry! I wasn;'t going to comment, but I assumed this would be reverted with cause (where's Bbb23 when you need him) as a joke. Or something. I mean: what's this Was told to post this report here by the Wikimedia Foundation
? Really?! I mean, maybe, but really?! Do the WMF usually instruct local arbcoms to hear cases? Or more correctly, advise random editors to report it to local committees? And if they did, wouldn't they contact the committee if only to assure them that, yes, they did?
@Barkeep49 and Thryduulf: To be fair, re. the account being either a burner or a sock, I think this is one of those few times where it might be excused. You see, I can't help but think that if I were a member of the Iranian Wikipedia, and was effectively grassing up Iranian government officials, I would probably not use my home account either. See: WP:SECURESOCK. And this. ——Serial Number 54129 19:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Thryduulf. Although, on the latter, point, if we're talking about someone whose home wiki is fa.wp, I wouldn't expect them to know the rules here. Which ironically is something the WMF should be instructing would-be case filers, especially if they are interested in maintaining good post-FRAMGATE relations with said wiki. Which they may or may not be, of course. ——Serial Number 54129 20:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: To clarify, no-one has suggested that this is an account from another language Wikipedia
. ——Serial Number 54129 17:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Robert McClenon: That is precisely my point (ignoring your rather childish dig). The whole point is that this could be someone whose home wiki is fa.wp, but, for reasons of security or self-interest, chooses to set up an account to make a highly sensitive report so as not to link themselves on a home wiki. That is very much in keeping with the spirit of WP:SECURESOCK. Since I have to repeat myself: they may be reporting the activities of agents of a government known to be active on that home wiki. You think that's frivolous. But then you also appear to believe that looking at reliable sources is a waste of time prior to making a judgment. You also seem to have reached the conclusion that I agree with you on something. I should clarify, that has so rarely been the case in the past that is unlikely to be so now.
@Arbs, ignoring McClenon's unhelpful remark for a moment, I should make it clear that I don't personally have an opinion; I do not know whether this is the case or not. But this is one of those rare times (although increasingly less so, perhaps...) when Wikipedia intersects with real life, with potential concomitant RL consequences. I mean... Iran ——Serial Number 54129 20:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Robert McClenon (Iranian POV)
Arbitration has always been a last resort for the resolution of disputes that cannot be settled in any other way. The filing of Requests for Arbitration by what appear to be new accounts established for the purpose of filing requests for arbitration does not appear to illustrate that all previous methods of dispute resolution, or any methods of dispute resolution, have been exhausted. (The global edit history shows that the filer is a new account, not an account from another language Wikipedia.) The list of previous steps in dispute resolution says that the filing party (the new account) contacted the WMF, which is a different last resort for the resolution of disputes. There is no evidence of discussion at any English Wikipedia forum. The evidence of a problem is that an article has been published by a reliable source, The Times (of London), apparently stating that there is being systematic removal of reports of human rights violations by the Iranian government. I have not read the details of the report because it is paywalled. There has not been an attempt to discuss the report. If there had been a serious attempt to discuss the report, an inquiry similar to the May 2023 case on distortion of coverage of the Jews in Poland in World War Two might be in order. There has not been such an attempt, and such a case is not in order. This filing is frivolous.
ArbCom should decline this case request, and remind the filer that premature filings are considered vexatious, but should be ready to consider an inquiry into distortion of Wikipedia coverage if there has been real inconclusive discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- User:Serial Number 54129 - No, on reading your aside comment three times, but you did write:
Although, on the latter, point, if we're talking about someone whose home wiki is fa.wp, I wouldn't expect them to know the rules here.
, thus raising the possibility that we were dealing with such a user, so I checked the global history. So we agree that is a throwaway account used for a frivolous filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- User:Serial Number 54129 - No, on reading your aside comment three times, but you did write:
Statement by Selfstudier
Imho, this is effectively a CT and non ECR editors should not be able to pursue remedies here. if this is a real problem, and the indications thus far is that is at least exaggerated, then surely there are some ECR editors willing to make the case. Selfstudier (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Vanamonde
I lack the time to examine the specifics, but as an admin who used to do a fair bit of GS enforcement in this area, I am of the opinion that AE has been an under-utilized resource, and I recommend ARBCOM decline to look into this when none of these supposedly problematic edits were reported to AE. I don't think this rises to the level of needing arbitration at this moment. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by {Non-party}
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 case request or provide additional information.
Statement by Irtapil
moved from Serial Number 54129's section. Primefac (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC) @Serial Number 54129: what do you mean by "home wiki"? Irtapil (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
@Primefac: I think this is where my statement belongs if I have no previous involvement? Irtapil (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Promoting Iranian government POV in Wikipedia?: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Promoting Iranian government POV in Wikipedia?: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
- This case request seems to be from a throwaway account, which I'm not in favor of accepting a request from, exceeds the 500/1000 word maximum (and if we honor 500 words, exceeds the 50 diff limit), and did not notify. I had privately suggested this be removed procedurally, without prejudice to refiling once those are remedied (and since then Thryduulff has fixed the notifications) but since someone else objected to that I wanted to publicly note my concerns about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkeep49 (talk • contribs)
- SN: If only it were as simple as pro-Iran/anti-Iran. The Iranian politics case showed there are vested interests, with their own issues, on the anti-Iran front who are also manipulating Wikipedia content, against policies, for their own ends. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Re:WMF: I find it unlikely that the WMF endorsed this filing per se. Rather I find it more likely that a user contacted the Foundation and the Foundation said "this is a matter for the community and for ArbCom". WMF stuff comes to ArbCom through certain (private) channels and this is obviously not that. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- I am not unsympathetic to the procedural issues to the case request. That said, I am mindful that we heard Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics in 2021, and we do have a broad ability to revisit proceedings as necessary. As far as quick perusal of the initial statement, Ali Ahwazi needs at a minimum a referral to AE considering the highlighted edits, which are recent. Mhhossein was a party to the previous case, and the highlighted edits are from 2017 and 2018. ArbCom has no jurisdiction over Commons. So, in short, while we're here, do we have any cause to continue? Otherwise I'm happy to see the case request removed on procedural grounds. Maxim (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Maxim that this can be procedurally removed as premature and/or deficient for the reasons they and Barkeep49 outline. firefly ( t · c ) 20:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Requests for clarification and amendment
Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).
To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)
- Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
- If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use
{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}}
to do this. - Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
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 TenPoundHammer at 21:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Conduct in deletion-related editing arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
9.1) TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
— Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing § TenPoundHammer topic banned (1)
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Information about amendment request
- This (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing; I can't figure out how to format this template properly, as I get a redlink no matter what I do to the title) was passed a year and a half ago. I would like to appeal it per the condition of
This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
- This (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing; I can't figure out how to format this template properly, as I get a redlink no matter what I do to the title) was passed a year and a half ago. I would like to appeal it per the condition of
- A limit may be placed on how many AFDs, PRODs, and CSDs I may place in a day or week (e.g. one a day, five a week, etc.)
- I may maintain a list of content I plan to nominate for deletion with evidence that I have done WP:BEFORE (in the case of articles) or otherwise understand why the content should be deleted.
- I am not to send material to AFD immediately after it has been de-prodded.
- If another editor argues "keep", I must refrain from personally attacking them if I disagree with their opinion.
- If an editor argues "keep" and presents sources, I must refrain from bullying them into adding sources into the article.
- Optional: Anything not intended for a deletion outcome (de-prodding, renaming a category), obviously vandalism or hoax (G3), or clearly done as maintenance (G6, G7, U1, fixing an improperly formatted discussion) may be exempt from the limitation.
- Optional: Another editor may volunteer to check my work and make sure if I am working within restrictions.
If I am deemed capable of working within the restrictions for a period of time (e.g., one month), restrictions may be lessened. However, if I exhibit behavior in violation of the restrictions, actions may be taken as needed (e.g., return to full topic-ban from deletion).
Per Thryduulf, I have chosen not to pursue complex restrictions further, but instead demonstrate that I understand why my behavior led to an XFD topic ban in the first place. I would like to present my understanding of my ban and appeal it accordingly. Thryduulf suggested my conduct since the topic ban is conducive to lifting it, and I would also like to show an understanding, and attempt to resolve, my past tendentiousness, recklessness, stubbornness, and other negative effects on the deletion process as a whole. My past behaviors included massive queues of nominations which flooded the queues, caused sloppy errors in fact checking and other practices of WP:BEFORE, attacks on editors whose participation in said discussions I disagreed with, and so on. I would like to appeal to a partial or full reversal of this ban -- whichever is decided better for me -- to prove that I have learned what I did wrong since the topic ban was enacted.
(Comment: This template is severely borked and I don't know how to unfuck it. I've tried a million things. Can someone fix this please so it's readable?)
- This is my first time doing something like this, so I don't know all the ins and outs. I was told it can be appealed so I am attempting in good faith to appeal it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Statement by TenPoundHammer
I was asked by ToBeFree (talk · contribs) to provide a view on what led to the topic ban. It's my understanding that my behavior in XFD included mass nominations which flooded the queues; aggressive behavior toward those who voted "keep" (e.g., browbeating them into adding the sources they found themselves, aggressively confronting them on source quality, general WP:BLUDGEON tactics); poor application of WP:BEFORE (likely stemming from the frantic pace in which I was nominating); and misleading edit summaries (e.g., saying an article was "deprodded for no reason" when the deprodder did explain their reason and/or added a source). No doubt my actions negatively impacted the opinions of other participants in such discussions, which instilled in me a feeling of bias against me that only made my actions even worse. I can also see how informing editors of active deletion discussions on relevant topics constitutes WP:CANVASSing, such as the entire "List of people on the postage stamps of X" debacle. I also expressed great frustration in my inability to properly execute any WP:ATD such as redirection, not thinking that maybe my attempts to redirect or merge content were being undone in good faith and not as some sort of vendetta against me. In general, these show a track record of being sloppy, knee-jerk, and aggressive, and trying way too hard to get my way in spite of what others think. And again, I can see how such actions have caused others to view me unfavorably even before the topic ban was issued.
I know this isn't the first time I've been here, and my deletion tactics have been problematic in the past. Ever since I was topic banned, the thought of "how could I have done that better?" was on my mind, and I'd been formulating theories on how I could have approached XFD better. It didn't help that I spent much of 2022 unemployed and I was not in a good mental state because of that. I feel that I am overall in a better state as an editor right now, as to my knowledge I have not had any conflicts with editors in the months since the topic ban. I also feel that I have formulated solutions to keep the previously mentioned problems at bay and take a more measured, less stressful approach to XFD. This is why one such proposal should the topic ban be rescinded was for me to keep a list of articles I intend to nominate, with proof of WP:BEFORE being done. I had attempted such a list before the topic ban, but it never got very far and I'm sure I was already too deep in the throes of my angry hasty approach. But now I've had plenty of time in which I feel I have sufficiently cooled down and can tackle a more systematic approach.
I did take some time to try and find sources for some TV articles I had questioned the notability of in the past. In just the course of a few minutes I was able to give Stump the Schwab a source, but found it difficult to find others and tagged it with {{notability}}. Ego Trip's The (White) Rapper Show I trimmed some plot summary out of and added a couple reliable sources which I feel are just enough to assert notability for the show. By comparison, Fast Food Mania did not seem to be a notable show, and I made a post here with my analysis of sourcing. This is the kind of behavior I wish to continue executing, so I can take a more measured approach with more time to present my findings or lack thereof before (if the topic ban is lifted) sending anything to XFD.
- @Aoidh: I have done so above in my statement. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Since it was brought up on my talk page, I would like to know: is participating in WP:DRV (which I honestly forgot even exists) a violation of the topic ban as it stands? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: If the result is to allow me to participate in XFDs but not initiate new ones, what would the conditions be to lift the topic ban entirely? I assume a second appeal after twelve months (the time established in the original topic ban), provided my behavior in the interim stays on point and no further problems arise? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I would appreciate some clarity on manners such as de-prodding, WP:REFUND, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- @ToBeFree: So at what point is this considered passed? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Thryduulf (re TPH)
A complex list of things you can and can't do is unlikely to gain the favour of the committee - complex restrictions are hard for everybody to remember, complicated to work out whether specific behaviour is permitted or not, and generally easier to accidentally violate. Instead, something like narrowing the scope of the topic ban to allow participation in deletion discussions initiated by other editors but retaining the prohibition on you nominating pages for prod or XFD is more likely to gain favour. Any removal or relaxation though will only happen if you have demonstrated an understanding of why the topic ban was initially placed and your conduct since the ban makes it seem probable that your presence in deletion discussions will not be disruptive. I have not yet looked to see whether both are true. Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- @TenPoundHammer: your current restriction prohibits you from taking part in "deletion-related discussions", that includes DRV. Thryduulf (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to Izno's suggestion, although it would need careful wording, e.g. it should mention explicitly whether they are allowed to discuss the deletion of drafts, and what happens regarding pages moved into or out of a namespace they cannot comment on (for simplicity I would suggest not allowing comments regarding redirects that either are in or which target namespaces they cannot comment on). Thryduulf (talk) 02:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
@ToBeFree: wrote I'd say it clearly also prohibits complaining about someone's decision to nominate an article for deletion, challenging deletion discussion closures on the closer's talk page, starting noticeboard threads about deletion closures or participating in deletion reviews.
I don't think it's clear that the proposed wording does prohibit all of those. I would read topic banned from initiating or closing deletion discussions.
as:
- Clearly prohibiting:
- Initiating or closing discussions at XfD
- Initiating or closing discussions at DRV
- Initiating or closing discussions challenging deletion discussion closures at noticeboards
- Initiating or closing proposals, RFCs and similar discussions about the deletion of pages (e.g. new or expanded CSD criteria)
- Adding proposals to delete to discussions about what to do with an article or set/class of articles
- Clearly not prohibiting:
- Participating in any of the above types of discussion
- Participating in discussions about challenged closures
- Responding to queries about deletion discussions or comments left in such discussions
- Implicity prohibiting:
- Initiating or closing discussions about (mass) draftification
- Adding proposals to draftify to discussions about what to do with an article or set/class of articles
- Blanking and redirecting pages or initiating or closing discussions proposing such
- Being entirely unclear about:
- Nominating pages for PROD or speedy deletion
- Endorsing PRODs placed by others
- Deprodding or challenging speedy deletions initiated by others
- Asking for clarification regarding the closure of a deletion discussion
- Supporting or opposing proposals regarding the deletion or draftification of pages or types of page
- Asking for deleted pages to be REFUNDed to draft or userspace
Accordingly I would suggest the topic ban be worded more clearly, perhaps something like: TPH is topic banned from:
- Nominating or proposing pages for deletion or speedy deletion
- Endorsing or declining proposed or speedy deletion nominations
- Challenging the closure of a deletion discussion (at DRV or elsewhere)
- Closing any deletion-related discussion
- Initiating or closing proposals to delete, speedy delete or draftify (types or classes of) pages (e.g. new or expanded CSD criteria)
They explicitly may:
- Participate in deletion and deletion review discussions.
- Challenge proposed or speedy deletion nominations by posting on the talk page.
- Seek clarification regarding the closure of deletion discussions.
- Request pages be REFUNDed to draft or userspace.
Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- @ToBeFree: The proposed restriction specifies the topic as only
initiating or closing deletion discussions
which is a lot narrower in my reading than it is in your apparent reading - e.g. PROD and CSD are not "discussions". The current restriction explicitly states "broadly construed" the proposed one does not, it is therefore reasonable to assume that its absence is intentional and significant. Certainly I cannot see any reasonable way to regardparticipating in deletion review discussions
as prohibited by the proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC) - @ToBeFree the word "topic" is irrelevant to my comment because whether TPH is "banned" or "topic banned" from
initiating or closing deletion discussions
makes no difference to what they are and are not permitted to do. Thryduulf (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Jclemens
It would be reasonable to restore TPH to participation in existing XfDs opened by others, and this will give the community time to see how that interaction goes. That is, a good few months of collegial comments, working towards consensus, finding sourcing or describing its absence, honoring ATDs, and the like would go a long way to demonstrating that TPH is moving past the binary battles of the old school AfDs we both remember. I'm most concerned that AfD participation is too low to sustain good discussions on more open AfDs at a time, and this would prevent that as a problem. I have seen TPH's desire to improve the encyclopedia, despite our being on the opposite sides of a lot of discussions over the years, and I would be pleased to find the dip in participation quality called out in the case was an anomaly in a long-term editor's carer. Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Izno
I remain of the opinion that the ban from all XFD was overly broad. The FOF for TPH referenced article deletion exclusively. Another alternative stepping stone besides banning from nominations and lifting otherwise would be to retain the ban in these areas (AFD, CSD in main space, RFD in main space, CFD for main space categories?, PROD) while removing it from the other forums. IznoPublic (talk) 02:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Extraordinary Writ
If you do decide to lift this restriction, I'd encourage you to leave a provision allowing an uninvolved administrator to reïmpose it should it become necessary down the road. The appeal is pretty good, but the appeal in 2019 was also pretty good, so while I hope it won't happen, I think it's important to have a failsafe in case things go south again. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Cunard
I started a talk page discussion with TenPoundHammer a few days ago about TenPoundHammer's blanking and redirecting of Monkey-ed Movies (link), Skating's Next Star (link), Monkey Life (link), 2 Minute Drill (game show) (link), and Monsters We Met (link) for lacking sources. I was able to find sources for these articles so reverted the redirects and added the sources. I asked TenPoundHammer not to blank and redirect articles as it was leading to notable topics no longer having articles.. Cunard (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Between 11 March 2023 and 16 March 2023, TenPoundHammer redirected 18 articles. Of those 18 articles, 14 were about television series. I monitor Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television so am focusing on the redirects of television series articles. I reviewed the first three television series articles that TenPoundHammer redirected: My Tiny Terror, Steampunk'd, and Window Warriors. I found sources for these articles and reverted the redirects. I have not searched for sources for the other television series but plan to do so later. It took me several hours to find sources and expand just three of the 14 television series articles that TenPoundHammer redirected.
- TenPoundHammer is resuming the actions that led me to create Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1101#TenPoundHammer: prods and AfDs, which was closed as "This matter has been escalated to the arbitration committee, which has opened a full case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing on this and other related matters" and is cited as "June 2022 ANI" in this finding of fact. TenPoundHammer is continuing to redirect articles despite my 3 March 2024 request to stop the redirects.
- I ask that the topic ban be amended to prohibit proposing articles for deletion and to also prohibit blanking and redirecting pages. This remedy does something similar for a different editor in the same arbitration case. Reviewing this volume of redirects consumes substantial editor time. The redirects are leading to numerous notable topics no longer having articles. The redirects prevent the topics from undergoing community review at AfD, which TenPoundHammer is topic banned from. Cunard (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- TenPoundHammer, the template should be fixed now. Feel free to adjust. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'd prefer to avoid voting for customized, user-specific sanctions – there's either a topic ban or there isn't. Also, no formal sanction should ever be needed to require adherence to the policies against personal attacks, harassment or similar behavior. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hello TenPoundHammer, no worries. If I see correctly, the appeal currently contains a list of proposed replacements for the existing topic ban, but it doesn't describe what led to the ban and how this changed in the meantime. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, TenPoundHammer, and sorry for the slow response. I'm fine with reducing the scope of your topic ban, as for example proposed in the first motion below. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- TenPoundHammer, thanks for asking. Motions are majority decisions; looking at WP:ArbCom#Members,* we'd currently need 7 support votes for the motion to pass. There are 5 so far.
(*This can be more complicated when an arbitrator is generally inactive but decides to join the discussion here, in which case they're "active on the motion" and counted as active here. Irrelevant in the current situation.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hello TenPoundHammer, no worries. If I see correctly, the appeal currently contains a list of proposed replacements for the existing topic ban, but it doesn't describe what led to the ban and how this changed in the meantime. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- I am open to the idea of amending the TBAN so that it is a topic ban on initiating deletion discussions rather than a topic ban on deletion discussions as a whole. However, @TenPoundHammer: could you elaborate on how you would approach such deletions discussions differently than in the past? - Aoidh (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- I am not immediately opposed to amending the topic ban following TenPoundHammer's reply above. Primefac (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- My !vote is to modify the TBAN. I think a TBAN of initiating deletion-related discussions (that is, nominating articles for PROD, XfD, etc.) and closing deletion discussions is appropriate, but I am willing to lift their ban on participating in deletion discussions. I would also add the stipulation that any admin can reimpose the TBAN for all deletion discussions if they find that TenPoundHammer has returned to the bludgeoning and harassment conduct that led to the TBAN. Z1720 (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Re: Barkeep and reinstatement if concerns continue: I would rather that the reinstatement be indefinite, with TPH having to come back to ArbCom to get it lifted again, accompanied with an explanation of their conduct. I do not want to stop TPH from being able to appeal (as admin make mistakes, and TPH should be able to point that out) but also if TPH's full TBAN is reinstated I do not want it automatically lifted because of a time limit. Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Z1720: I am suggesting that an individual admin could only reinstate for the first 12-18 months. So if no one does in that time, it would have to be reinstated by the committee or community rather than as an individual admin action. If reinstated it would then be indefinite. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Re: Barkeep and reinstatement if concerns continue: I would rather that the reinstatement be indefinite, with TPH having to come back to ArbCom to get it lifted again, accompanied with an explanation of their conduct. I do not want to stop TPH from being able to appeal (as admin make mistakes, and TPH should be able to point that out) but also if TPH's full TBAN is reinstated I do not want it automatically lifted because of a time limit. Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm open to a modification along the lines of what Z1720 suggests (also not opposed to Izno's scope) though I would want the ability for an individual admin to reinstate for 12-18 months given the conduct issues from the case during discussions and the previous failure when a TBAN was removed. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- This appeal shows the appropriate level of self-reflection and understanding of the problems. I think this is a classic case of a good editor with a blind spot in a particular area. I'm quite happy to consider lifting or loosening the restriction. I'd be happy with either allowing TPH to participate but not initiate, or with lifting completely with a caveat like EW's that means it can be re-imposed with minimal bureaucratic overhead. I could also see my way to supporting something a bit more nuanced if those two options don't gain traction. Not that I doubt TPH's sincerity, but this seems to be a big blind spot and complaints about TPH and AfD stretch back many years (I seem to recall seeing complaints back when I was first starting out 15 years ago). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- I would be happy with modifying the TBAN to permit participating in XfDs (but not starting or closing), with an uninvolved admin being able to reimpose the full tban within the first 12 months. Maxim (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Motion: TenPoundHammer topic ban modified
TenPoundHammer's topic ban (Remedy 9.1) is modified to read TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is
topic banned from initiating or closing deletion discussions. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. An uninvolved administrator may reimpose a full topic ban on deletion discussions (broadly construed) within the first twelve months.
- Support
-
- Feel free to wordsmith. Primefac (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- "topic" removed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support as written. Z1720 (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Aoidh (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Maxim (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Feel free to wordsmith. Primefac (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose
-
- (As I'd prefer to avoid supporting user-specific/custom restrictions and TenPoundHammer has understandably asked for how this discussion continues, I'll formally add an oppose vote here so my non-support is properly counted and we have 6 arbitrators who have already voted.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Abstain
-
- Arbitrator comments
- Generally supportive, but as written I don't think the motion includes PROD, which I strongly believe it should. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- If this motion doesn't include PROD, I'm afraid the current sanction doesn't either. And I can see that, as proposing deletion is meant for exactly the cases that are perceived to not require a deletion discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- The previous motion was broadly construed and this is not. If I recall correctly that's where the thinking was that it included things other than XfD. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Barkeep would you like to add "broadly construed" at the end of the first sentence? I would consider this addition to include PROD. Z1720 (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- That would also include CSD which I don't think is the current intent? Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I can't see that the current restriction applies to CSD or PROD and nor does this one. Ultimately I support largely lifting all restrictions but with the ability of an uninvovled admin to re-impose them. If there are issues with TPH's deletion-related conduct in the future we can look at them then. ArbCom retains jurisdiction over the matters it hears. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- That would also include CSD which I don't think is the current intent? Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Topic bans are broadly construed by default, "unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Barkeep would you like to add "broadly construed" at the end of the first sentence? I would consider this addition to include PROD. Z1720 (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- The previous motion was broadly construed and this is not. If I recall correctly that's where the thinking was that it included things other than XfD. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- If this motion doesn't include PROD, I'm afraid the current sanction doesn't either. And I can see that, as proposing deletion is meant for exactly the cases that are perceived to not require a deletion discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm fine with this. Note: As this is a topic ban, I'd say it clearly also prohibits complaining about someone's decision to nominate an article for deletion, challenging deletion discussion closures on the closer's talk page, starting noticeboard threads about deletion closures or participating in deletion reviews.~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)- Thryduulf, if I understand correctly, you either believe that in the current case, the word "topic" shouldn't have the meaning described at WP:TBAN, or the word "topic" should be removed. While that's an option – a user-specific custom ban type – I personally wouldn't support it. A topic ban from closing deletion discussions, or less ambiguously, a topic ban from deletion discussion closures, does include discussions of such closures, e.g. at DRV. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thryduulf, that would already be said by the text "TenPoundHammer is banned from initiating or closing deletion discussions". Adding the word "topic" then just adds confusion and ambiguity. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that neither CSD nor PROD are deletion discussions, and I'd say that assuming they're included in the original remedy is a bit far-fetched. Regarding "topic" and "broadly construed", the motion is currently demonstrably not clear enough about what is included and what is not. I'll strikethrough "topic" in the motion as it's either irrelevant or confusing or comes with unintended implications. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thryduulf, that would already be said by the text "TenPoundHammer is banned from initiating or closing deletion discussions". Adding the word "topic" then just adds confusion and ambiguity. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thryduulf, if I understand correctly, you either believe that in the current case, the word "topic" shouldn't have the meaning described at WP:TBAN, or the word "topic" should be removed. While that's an option – a user-specific custom ban type – I personally wouldn't support it. A topic ban from closing deletion discussions, or less ambiguously, a topic ban from deletion discussion closures, does include discussions of such closures, e.g. at DRV. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I am fine adding "broadly construed" as it was in the original motion and does allow for less pigeonholing. I would also agree with those above who indicate that the original does not mention CSD or PROD so this one probably should not either. Primefac (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ironically, now that "topic" is gone and my interpretation of the proposed ban is narrow, I personally would recommend against adding "broadly construed". To decide this, perhaps an example would be needed of behavior that is meant to be (additionally) prohibited. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Amendment request: GamerGate
A rough consensus has been reached that "broadly construed" already includes the proposed extension. For example, Sweet Baby Inc. is covered by the existing scope. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Initiated by Aquillion at 01:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by AquillionIn 2021, the GamerGate discretionary sanctions (now CTOP) were transferred to a gender-and-sexuality shell case. The intent at the time, I believe, was just to rename it for clarity, not to meaningfully shift what the DS covered; GamerGate itself was declared a gender-related dispute or controversy to avoid this. And it covered most of what was under Gamergate, but it seems to have left a few things uncovered - disruption related to, or stemming from, Gamergate but not to gender and sexuality directly; and disruption on articles that were major focuses of GamerGate's ire without themselves being gender or sexuality. These articles have recently shown disruption similar to what led to the original Gamergate ArbCom case. Some examples: Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (see here explaining the connection; it was a major focus of Gamergate back in 2014, and the since-deleted article we had at the time was a focus for essentially the same groups of editors; see also discussion of it here) has seen a bunch of recent disruption, with multiple editors being topic-banned from it as a result. More recently, and more importantly, Sweet Baby Inc. has been a major focus of disruption over a controversy from the same general group of people, with the people involved directly calling it "GamerGate 2" ([66][67]); a glance at the history there will show that the article is already suffering from heavy edit-warring. It has been semi-protected for two days, but I think it's clear that that alone won't be enough. See also discussion here. I suggest amending the GamerGate DS case to explicitly restore its CTOP independently from the gender-and-sexuality one. --Aquillion (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by SwatjesterI had not seen this request for clarification when I added the CTOP notifications to Sweet Baby Inc.; however I think it's pretty straightforward that it applies here. The WP:GENSEX remedy that says "all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people" and that "For the avoidance of doubt, GamerGate is considered a gender-related dispute or controversy for the purposes of this remedy". That second part is not saying that the article is a gender-related dispute; it's saying that the underlying subject matter of GamerGate itself, is a gender-related dispute for the purposes of this remedy. Since the scope of Controversial Topics are to be "broadly construed" and per the explanatory essay on WP:BROADLY stating that ""Broadly construed" is also used when designating a topic area as a contentious topic. In particular, if there is any plausible dispute over whether particular content is covered by the scope of a contentious topic (for example, definitional disputes: whether a particular issue counts as a type of American political issue, whether a particular practice counts as a type of alternative medicine, etc), that is normally taken to mean that it does it seems pretty straightforward to me that anything related to the GamerGate controversy is covered under the GENSEX CT, as it inherently involves a dispute that is gender-related. Now, could this all be easily resolved if the Committee issues a clarification? Sure, either more generally as to the scope or specifically with regard to the above article. Do I think that's strictly necessary? No, as I think the existing text already covers this pretty unequivocally. But since clarification wouldn't hurt, go for it I guess. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 08:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by Sideswipe9th (GamerGate)I can see both sides of the argument here. Aquillion makes good points that it can be confusing if non-gender related disruption stemming from GamerGate is covered by GENSEX. Swatjester makes a good point that the broadly construed language covers that, and implies that it does. Unfortunately that confusion does provide a potential narrow avenue for disruptive wikilawyering. As someone who winds up issuing a lot of CT alerts in this content area, it does feel a bit weird to me that I have to add a clarifier after the alert that GamerGate is considered a gender-related dispute, which I feel is necessary to pre-empt any "why are you alerting me for GENSEX?" type of discussions. And I could see some value in there being a GamerGate shell case just to make it explicitly clear that yes, this is considered a CTOP. But at the same time, GamerGate has been relatively quiet until recently. Yes there's still on-going harassment of some of their former targets (there's a reason why Brianna Wu is indef fully protected), and we occasionally see some disruption on the main GamerGate article but it is not that widespread. If the disruption continues at its current background level, I don't really see a need for an explicit GamerGate specific CTOP. However, the Sweet Baby Inc stuff could, as demonstrated by the sourcing from Aquillion, represent the start of GamerGate 2, and certainly I've seen a lot of sentiment about that on social media. If this does represent the opening salvo of GG2.0, we likely will start seeing more active and widespread disruption that has some overlaps with the current anti-trans and anti-LGBT+ disruption we see more generally in GENSEX, but also has a number of distinct elements in and of itself that aren't gender or sexuality related, even broadly construed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by {other-editor}Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information. GamerGate: Clerk notes
GamerGate: Arbitrator views and discussion
|
Amendment request: Gender and sexuality
Initiated by Sideswipe9th at 02:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Sideswipe9th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Daniel Case (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Information about amendment request
- Add WP:ARBECR as an optional restriction that can be applied on a per-article basis.
Statement by Sideswipe9th
The GENSEX content area currently contains some of the most contentious articles on enwiki. There is an anti-LGBT+ culture war occurring in large parts of the Anglosphere, and some of our articles document the people, organisations, and events involved. As of 7 March 2024 there are 34 indef-ECPed articles, and 1 indef-fully protected article. Of those 34 indef-ECPed articles, 8 were articles whose first protection log entry was indef-ECP.
In September 2021 ArbCom enacted ARBECR for use in the WP:APL and WP:CT/A-I content areas, as a content area wide restriction due to widespread disruption. While GENSEX as a whole does not see the same level of disruption, individual articles within it do. Articles like Gays Against Groomers, Libs of TikTok, and Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine often see spikes in talk page activity whenever those groups tweet about Wikipedia. Articles like 2023 Nashville school shooting document crimes committed by trans or non-binary people, which are subject to intense off-wiki disinformation campaigns (NBC News, AP News). Occasionally we get articles that are subject to misinformation like Lakewood Church shooting, where groups like Libs of TikTok spread misinformation that the perpetrator was trans (Vice, Advocate, The Independent (UK)).
One area we see frequent disruption in are biographies of trans and non-binary people. This typically takes the form of deadnaming and/or misgendering of the subject. Because of the overlap with WP:CT/BLP many of the articles that see this type of disruption are often protected under the BLP CTOP, and where these articles are protected the disruption typically spills over to the talk page. Often revdelling and/or oversight is needed, for both articles and talk pages. Currently it is typical for protection requests to be escalated both in the severity of the sanction (ie semi -> ECP) and the duration (ie 72 hours -> 1 month -> 6 months, etc). It is also typical for the disruption to resume once a time limited sanction expires, forcing patrolling editors to return to RfPP. Because of the frequency of disruption to GENSEX bios, having ARBECR as an option in the standard set of sanctions would make long term protection of these articles much more straightforward, as it would provide an avenue to long-term protection outside of an WP:IAR based indef protection as a first action. My sandbox evidence has 5 examples of bios in this content area where indef-semi or indef-ECP were the first protection action.
While drafting this request, an example of where this restriction would be helpful has occurred; Sweet Baby Inc. As evidenced in the recent GamerGate ARCA there are some sources describing this as GamerGate 2, and this has been reflected in the volume and quality of the talk page discussions about the article. There are currently several non-extended-confirmed editors who I would describe as POV pushing and advocating for content changes that go against multiple policies and guidelines. On 12 March 2024, several high follower Twitter accounts began tweeting their displeasure about the article's content, with one canvassing Twitter users to the article talk page (evidence can be emailed to the committee if required). ARBECR would be extremely helpful for this talk page and article, in the same way that it is helpful for combatting disruption on Talk:Israel–Hamas war.
The selective nature of this proposal could put a higher burden on new and patrolling editors than the content area wide version. However this is also something that already affects those editors, where ARBECR is applied to an article whose CT/A-I content is secondary to the primary topic of the article.
To sum up, I think we're pretty far from requiring ARBECR across the entire GENSEX content area. However I think it would be useful for ARBECR to be available as a per-article page restriction as part of the standard set of restrictions available to uninvolved admins in this content area. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- To Barkeep: ARBECR confers one additional restriction that standard article protection does not; non-extended-confirmed editors are only allowed to make non-disruptive edit requests (WP:ARBECR#A1). Since I opened this request, 12 revisions on Talk:Sweet Baby Inc. were RD2ed, and the talk page has now been semi-protected for a week (page log). While ARBECR would not prevent talk page BLP violations, it would significantly reduce the potential for them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- To Barkeep: To clarify, are you suggesting an article talk page only variant of ARBECR#A1, with non-EC editors only being permitted to make edit requests on the talk page, while still allowing non-EC editors to participate in discussions about the article at other venues? Would the article also still be extended-confirmed protected? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- To Barkeep: When you're saying
admin should ECR talk pages
, are you meaning admins should ECP talk pages? WP:ECR as currently written doesn't have a provision for just talk page restriction, nor can admins apply it outside of content areas authorised by the committee. As Aquillion notes for ECP, anything other than short-term semi-protection for article talk pages is prohibited by WP:ATPROT. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)- To Barkeep: No worries. In that case, please see mine and Aquillion's points about ECPing talk pages being prohibited by WP:ATPROT. Extending ARBECR on a per-article basis however can be done without breaching ATPROT. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- To Barkeep: I suspect extending ARBECR on a per-article basis would be an overall less controversial move to the wider community, than establishing a new ArbCom/CTOP exemption of ATPROT via ARCA. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- To Barkeep: No worries. In that case, please see mine and Aquillion's points about ECPing talk pages being prohibited by WP:ATPROT. Extending ARBECR on a per-article basis however can be done without breaching ATPROT. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- To Barkeep: When you're saying
- To Barkeep: On evidence for disruption at other noticeboards, an IP editor just made a comment at a RSN discussion on a source publication they wanted added to the Sweet Baby Inc article. That comment has the same type of bad faith accusations and threats for administrative action that were being made on the article talk page prior to it being semi-protected. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- To Barkeep: To clarify, are you suggesting an article talk page only variant of ARBECR#A1, with non-EC editors only being permitted to make edit requests on the talk page, while still allowing non-EC editors to participate in discussions about the article at other venues? Would the article also still be extended-confirmed protected? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- To clerks, I'm currently at 715/1000 words. Could I request an additional 250-500 words for back and forth with the committee if it's required? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- To Primefac: I don't think we're at the tipping point for the entire content area, but we are for specific articles and their talk pages within it. This is why I'm asking for it on a per-article basis, rather than topic wide. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- To Nil Einne: I would envisage it the same way you have. If Elliot Page was ECRed, it would apply to any venue that specific article is discussed (eg AfD, BLPN, NPOVN, etc). It would not cascade to sub-articles like List of awards and nominations received by Elliot Page or any other article/page where Page is mentioned as part of the content. Those other pages would need to have their own ECR protection. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Daniel Case
In the time that I've been reguarly reviewing the admin noticeboards, RFPP has seen regular requests to protect BLP articles about trans or non-binary people who prefer that standard pronouns not be used. Invariably these do not come out of disputes over the subject's birthplace or nationality—they are, as Sideswipe documents, deliberate misgenderings and deadnamings. Since these biographical issues are unique to this topic area, I have protected them (and tagged the article talk pages) under GENSEX rather than BLP. I have of late taken to RevDel'ing these edits as we would do with edits that use slurs or defamatory language to describe people, and I would also suggest to ArbCom that it encourage this as well.
Sometimes these have spilled over into articles only incidentally related to GENSEX issues, like Cheshire home invasion murders (one perpetrator, convicted of rape in the case, has subsequently transitioned in prison) and more recently Music of Minecraft (one of the two composers is trans) along with the aforementioned Sweet Baby article. I doubt these will be the only ones.
When I protect articles, I generally prefer to start with semi for the shortest duration possible. And that is how I have generally tried to protect these articles. It's good to assume good faith on the community's part, that once the little break is over, everyone will be grown up.
But with these articles, enough of them have worked their way up to indef semi or ECP, or been put there by admins less willing to give the community the benefit of the doubt than I am (and looking back at the AE logs, I too have reached the point of long-term and indefinite protection like I recently made to Hannah Gadsby and India Willoughby. Even I will admit that it seems like a mere formality with many of these articles to not start with longer-term protection, because almost every time we get there eventually anyway.
Look at 2022 NCAA Division I Women's Swimming and Diving Championships ... we thought last year that since the event was long over we could unprotect it. Instead we had to put two years worth of semi.
I would defy anyone, actually, to find an example of a relatively decent-length article about a trans or non-standard-pronoun person that we've had for some time which hasn't had to be protected like this. Looking at last year's log for this topic area, I see articles whose protections will expire sometime soon and will likely have to be reprotected (some of which, like Maia arson crimew and Bridget (Guilty Gear), already have been so far this year). Go back another year, and you'll see the pattern continuing.
I really believe it's time that we include at least misgendering and deadnaming as behavior covered by ARBECR. Maybe it doesn't have to be imposed as soon as the article's created like we have been doing with PIA (at least for articles in that area closely related to the current conflict), but we can definitely give admins the OK to impose it at the first sign of that disruption. It will definitely cut down on admin work down the line, and it seems like it already has been the default posture of some of the reviewing admins for some time now. Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Nil Einne
I have no objection to any of these proposals although I definitely agree with User:Sideswipe9th that it's better if we allow admins to apply ARBECR as needed rather than apply it to the entire topic area.
BTW, User:Daniel Case, perhaps this is WP:BEANS but I think the risk is low. Georgina Beyer passed away just over a year ago, but this was well after a lot of the craziness and unless I'm missing something apart from a 7 day semi protection [68] about 2 weeks after her death due to some misgendering, the article seems to have survived relatively without problem despite this lack of protection and being of decent size [69]. (I mean there early problem reoccured but was resolved via blocking. The problem AFAICT seems to be mostly from editors insisting on removing female and calling her male in edit summaries, although I think at least most of these have stayed away from inserting male into the article.) I think it helped that she was significantly out of the public eye in recent years although I also think her pioneering role is still fairly well recognised within NZ.
Nil Einne (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
(There's another example I can't discuss here for various reasons but could email if anyone is interested which while it is ECP protected, which I don't object to, looking at the circumstances I don't think it really fits into the pattern either.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@Sideswipe9th: and arbs: think we need clarity how per-article ARBECR applies to other pages. For topic level, as I understand ARBECR, it applies everywhere. So editors cannot bring up such issues at BLP/N or other noticeboard nor can they participate in AFDs etc as they can only make edit requests. I feel when disruption moves to another article admins can deal with it as required so isn't an issue but trickier for noticeboards. IMO if article-level ARBECR is applied it should apply not just to the article talk page but to all pages when discussing changes or concerns over that article like with standard ARBECR. Importantly, as I understand it, this technically allows any EC editor to close or revert any discussion by non-EC editors. However it doesn't apply to other articles so ARBECR on Elliot Page would not apply to List of awards and nominations received by Elliot Page (but an admin can apply it to both). And it's fine for editors to mention something of relevance at Elliot Page in discussion about the list but suggestions for changing Elliot Page would generally be off-topic on the list talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Courcelles
- I don't think really anything more is needed here than something like the community said about the Armenia-Azerbaijan general sanctions, where the liberal use of ECP to combat disruption was explicitly encouraged. As someone who had his name all over the AELOG over the last year about this case, I think de facto we already are using protection pretty liberally to stop bigotry, but an explicit instruction to do so would still be good guidance. Courcelles (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Aquillion
Regarding the advantages ARBECR offers traditional protection - it is of course extremely rare for a talk page to be protected, per WP:ATPROT, and indefinite semi-protection (let alone ECR protection) for talk pages is almost unheard of; but much of the disruption is currently on talk, as the redactions of BLP violations on Sweet Baby Inc. show. And more generally, prior to semi-protection the talk page was a mess of WP:FORUM stuff, WP:ASPERSIONS, general complaints about Wikipedia as a whole, and requests that were obviously not compatible with policy, repeated in every single section to the point of disrupting all other discussion there. ARBECR would let admins place slightly looser but more persistent restrictions on talk pages that would still allow new and unregistered users to make edit requests while limiting the scope of disruption; I don't think that extended-protecting a talk page, by comparison, is a viable long-term solution even if policy allowed it. --Aquillion (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: Do admins realize that they can apply ECR to pages in WP:CTOPs, though? I'm not opposed to just "they're already allowed to do it and they probably only need to do it occasionally" - I definitely don't think we need it for the entire topic area, just a few pages that have been the target of persistent off-wiki canvassing that has spilled over onto talk - but I'm not sure admins realize they can (has it ever been done?) So it might require a clarification. --Aquillion (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by The Wordsmith
As has been discussed, WP:GENSEX is a massive topic area with plenty of fuzzy borders. There are plenty of good contributions from non-EC editors, and many of Wikipedia's efforts to reduce the gender gap intersect with this topic area and include encouraging new editors to work on articles. Applying WP:ARBECR as the default would have too much collateral damage. Applying 500/30 to individual articles and other pages is already available as part of the standard set, so I don't think there is any change that needs to be made here. If the current protection expires and disruption resumes, admins can impose more long-term protection. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Swatjester
I am generally in favor of giving more tools to administrators trying to address disruption on contentious topics. So I'm aligned with the proposal. In terms of what the language looks like, personally, I agree with Sideswipe in that I'd like to see it as an expansion to the already-authorized list of standard restrictions. This has the benefit of 1) not requiring any change in process to implement, and 2) achieves the "as-needed basis" element without hindering any administrator's ability to escalate straight to it it, if they believe that's necessary. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by SWinxy
RE: Primefac. Yes, there would be a negative impact by preemptively locking GENSEX articles under ECP. Small but helpful edits by non-extended confirmed users (and all IPs) at Death of Tyra Hunter would have been prevented from positive changes. This article also has never received protection in the two decades it has been there. But I don't know the extent of the negative implications that a preemptive protection would bring, and how to weigh that against the harm of the status quo. But I do know it would be some hinderance in the pursuit to collaborative encyclopedia building. I prefer having it be the norm that things can go straight to indef ECP if determined necessary. SWinxy (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Gender and sexuality: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Gender and sexuality: Arbitrator views and discussion
- I would like to ask the opposite question: would there be a significant and/or negative impact if we restricted all pages in this topic area to extended-confirmed editors? As a corollary, if I come across a page with Pending Changes enabled but every IP edit has been reverted, I will often switch it to semiprotection. If PC seems to be keeping out the worst of it but there are productive edits, I generally leave things be. This request seems to be indicating we have a tipping point of a similar nature.In other words, are we at this point with the entire topic area, broadly construed, where it is more practical to just prohibit everything, or would we lose out on enough not-bad contributions that we might turn folk away from the area entirely? Primefac (talk) 12:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- re:PF As we just established in the last clarification, this is a large topic area and one whose scope is not always immediately obvious. Both of these would be concerns for me to making ECR default and the evidence we have so far of disruption is not sufficient to overcome those concerns. As for the original request, page protection is already part of the standard set and per the request is being used by admins. I'm not sure how that differs from adding ECR to the standard set for the topic area. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- That is why I asked the question. Primefac (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Sideswipe9th, @Nil Einne I understand the need to ECR the talk page but any time we do ECR in wider ways we get lots of requests for clarifications. So "You can't discuss this article at a noticeboard but can discuss a related article" is bound to create more of these requests and so I'm still back to "let admins use the authority they already have" or making clear, perhaps just through clarification here or perhaps through motion, that talk page ECR is definitely appropriate in this topic area before trying some kind of more sweeping solution. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sideswipe: I'm suggesting "admin should ECR talk pages when they have been disrupted". Is there evidence of noticeboard disruption from non-ECR editors? If so I don't think that evidence has been presented yet. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sideswipe: Yes I'm admittedly using ECP and ECR interchangeably and I shouldn't. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Conceptually it's important to remember that Contentious Topic procedures are a delegated grant of ArbCom's authority, in this case to
To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve
. This is why we ArbCom can act in ways that are an exemption to consensus. For instance there is a consensus, codified through policy, that says when an editor may be blocked. Contentious topic overrules that consensus and provides other criteria. There is a consensus against protecting article talk pages. As shown with ECR, ArbCom can overrule that consensus and provide other criteria. So WP:ATPROT doesn't strike me as some special barrier. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Conceptually it's important to remember that Contentious Topic procedures are a delegated grant of ArbCom's authority, in this case to
- Sideswipe: Yes I'm admittedly using ECP and ECR interchangeably and I shouldn't. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sideswipe: I'm suggesting "admin should ECR talk pages when they have been disrupted". Is there evidence of noticeboard disruption from non-ECR editors? If so I don't think that evidence has been presented yet. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Aquillion good news is that this very discussion can lead to that clarification. Barkeep49 (talk) 08:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Amendment request: India-Pakistan
Initiated by Robert McClenon at 23:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Contentious_topic_designation
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Robert McClenon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Cossde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Petextrodon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Oz346 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- UtoD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACossde&diff=1214440521&oldid=1212446773
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APetextrodon&diff=1214440584&oldid=1212279589
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOz346&diff=1214440640&oldid=1210896395
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AUtoD&diff=1214440697&oldid=1214316349
- Information about amendment request
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Contentious_topic_designation
- Add Sri Lanka to list of countries within scope of contentious topic.
Statement by Robert McClenon
Sri Lanka has a common cultural history with India, and a common political history with India including British rule in the nineteenth century and early twentieth century and resistance to British rule.
Disputes over Sri Lanka and the Sri Lankan Civil War are common
I have just failed a dispute at DRN over an atrocity that was a prelude to the Sri Lankan Civil War:
Declined Arbitration Cases
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1159486635#Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam (10 June 2023)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1158663393#Sri_Lanka_Armed_Forces (5 June 2023)
Archived Disputes at WP:ANI
Archived Disputes at WP:DRN
Explanation and Clarification
I thank User:Oz346 for submitting an RFC to resolve the question of language in the article about the 1977 pogrom. The RFC and this amendment request are independent of each other, to address a specific content issue and a general problem of disruptive editing about Sri Lanka, resulting in too many disputes. The purpose of this amendment request is to identify Sri Lanka as a contentious topic, which will authorize administrators at Arbitration Enforcement to deal proactively with disruptive editing with sanctions such as topic-bans. I have also initiated one RFC concerning the UN report on the Sri Lankan Civil War, and am about to initiate another RFC concerning the reported sexual abuse by Sri Lankan peacekeepers in Haiti. The frequency of content disputes about Sri Lanka illustrates a need for a contentious topic designation. I could have submitted a Request for Arbitration, but it seems less difficult to expand the area of the existing designation. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Cossde
Statement by Petextrodon
Statement by Oz346
Due to the failure of this discussion: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#1977_anti-Tamil_pogrom
I have opened up a RFC. I believe that RFC have a much higher chance of solving these disputes, due to the input of multiple voices, and will be probably be less time consuming for all involved. Oz346 (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by UtoD
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
India-Pakistan: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
India-Pakistan: Arbitrator views and discussion
Motions
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. |
Requests for enforcement
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
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}}.
|
SMcCandlish
SMcCandlish is reminded to remain civil in MOS discussions, that they remain under sanction, and that civility applies everywhere on Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 13 March 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 SMcCandlish
There's some pretty textbook violations of WP:AGF here, both at individual editors (Hey man im josh and Jessintime), as well as identifiable groups of editors (those who edit the MOS and get into disputes). Not sure what sanctions are appropriate here, but at minimum I'd suggest SMcCandlish strike these comments and apologise to the named editors. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning SMcCandlishStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SMcCandlishBackground: I'd made observations at an essay I wrote. Jessintime reverted it all with grandstanding, subjective rationale of "inappropriate", with evidenceless bad-faith-assumptive accusation of GAMING. I un-reverted (with curt comment). Instead of normal discussion, Jessintime went to AN with same accusation: "attempt to game the system in light of the threads like the close review above". WP:GAMING is specifically defined as bad-faith activity. Jessintime's partisan in said review. I was unnecessarily testy to Jessintime, my tone poor and flippant. I should've been the one to open talk-page discussion, though BRD's a rather conventionalized essay, not required. At AN, I offered to userspace the essay. Also suggested people're welcome to MfD it to that end (just not misuse AN as "pseudo-MfD"). Repeatedly welcomed editors to raise issues in talk toward wording changes. Any such solution is fine. Tempest in a teapot. It's not AN/AE material, just routine, temporary content-dispute. Apologized to Jessintime for flippancy and venty response at AN (common there, but nevertheless more heat than light) [70]. Did major tone edit to the entire essay; should address Jessintime's concern.
Colin's first law of holes advice is right; no one'll be impressed by me acting butthurt about a finger being pointed or a concern raised. Not angry about anything, just weary. Having a momentary "everyone just STFU about style stuff and go do something else!" reaction, instead of taking a breath, reapproaching from a chill position, wasn't the cool head Colin advises. Sideswipe9th's initial diffs:
Later diffs from Sideswipe9th (in lengthy content dispute with me elsewhere):
On more HMIJ comments: Yes, I bludgeoned as did several on both sides. Not an ideal discussion. I'll endeavor to do better. But mixing "bludgeon" into "bad faith" sentence makes for a claim that posting too often is bad-faith (i.e., HMIJ ABFs while accusing me of ABFing). Elephant in HMIJ's (and Sideswipe9th's) room: consistently mislabeling criticism of actions/statements as ABF. It's not. It's disagreement with action/statement. Not judgment as a person, expression of defaulting to distrust, etc. AN[I] consists of little but such inter-editor kvetching. "[C]ompletely irrelevant discussions": nope, deeply intertwined in a causal chain. The irrelevant ones were things like Sideswipe9th diffing me using a word she doesn't like months ago in unrelated subject. No room to address HMIJ's closing invective; its punitive heat didn't assuage the "silence opponent in content disagreement" feel. Peace is better. Update: Being sensitive to negative interpretations, false accusations, I tone-revised the statements HMIJ objected to [71]; can go further or strike something if needed. I may defend my rationale for writing something, and it not being ABF, but have no interest in retaining material felt hurtful. HMIJ, please do read the above, try to understand my perspective as I have yours. E.g., why I found some of your statements alarming or antagonistic (not just toward me but to consensus formation/process, which matters more). Sideswipe9th's hypothesis, that "Observing that PoV pushers on both sides of an issue exist and will push their PoV" = ABF, isn't sustainable. ABF about an editor (or group thereof) isn't equivalent to observing bare fact that PoV pushers exist and will (by definition) push PoVs. Observation and assumption aren't synonyms. Discussed in detail in usertalk. The Wordsmith: "AGF/ABF" don't get to mean whatever someone chooses. Definition at WP:AGF: Update, after extensive HMIJ and Sideswipe9th usertalk discussion (as Drmies advised), Sideswipe9th posted (quoting me at start):
Reason[s] are under discussion, reflection. The AE opener appears to have accepted that while I wasn't as civil as I needed to be (some of that in rather old diffs), it wasn't bad-faith assumption. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC) (revised a bunch of times to address incoming comments and developments, but keep under 1500 words without an extension) Statement by ColinI think the opening diffs of this complaint are unfair in that they don't supply context for the hostile remarks. The context is that SMcCandlish got his ass dragged to ANI by Jessintime and explicitly accused of "an attempt to game the system in light of the threads like the close review above". The disputed addition to the so-called "Manual of Style extended FAQ" is indeed highly problematic, inflammatory and verging on rant (e.g. "If you are going around looking for potential exceptions to push against any MoS rule, please find something more productive to do."), but dealing with that by going straight to ANI would I think understandably have got any editor angry and hostile in their response. The context is necessary as comments about other editors are made all the time at AN/I. While some comments may indeed be uncivil and nasty and so on, making a comment about another editor and one's perceptions about their behaviour is expected there (as seen by Jessintime's accusation of SMcCandlish gaming the system). Hostile negative comments about another editor are absolutely typical in the case where the community is about to sanction that editor at ANI. So context is needed. Reading many of the hostile remarks, I'm struck by the phrase "When you are in a hole, stop digging". That, if SMcCandlish is still angry, then perhaps best to leave things with "I concede my tone in response was poor", etc, and leave others to examine the behaviour of all users in that ANI discussion. Augmenting a so called MOS FAQ with rants about other editors behaviour, which one has only just witnessed and vocally publicly disapproved of, was not wise IMO. SMcCandlish has written useful essays and has first class knowledge of how MoS works. But a cool head is needed to write a good essay. The general feeling of that ANI dispute was that the MOS FAQ has too much personal moan and note enough of a succinct frequently-asked-questions-with-pithy-answers help page. Can this be better avoided in future? One thought would be that any page that appears to be a general advice (like a MoS FAQ essay would be viewed as) should be up-front collaboratively written. That SMcCandlish find a partner to write it, who would maybe help spot when it is getting too personal-viewpointy and too angry? -- Colin°Talk 11:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC) Statement by JessintimeI would like to clarify my statement at AN in regards to "gaming." My belief upon seeing the edit summary used "New section based on various talk-page discussions (user talk, RfCs, RM disputes, etc.)" [72] and the actual content added (which almost everyone at AN has since taken issue with) was that SMcCandlish was effectively attempting to amend a purported part of the MOS amid an article title dispute currently being reviewed at AN. This seemed to run afoul of Wikipedia:FORCEDINTERPRET or "Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose your own novel view of 'standards to apply' rather than those of the community" by amending the MOS to suggest it is inviolable or/and discouraging other editors from questioning it. As for why I went straight to AN, I felt that any discussion at either the FAQ's talk page or the MOS talk page would have been met with the same bludgeoning that occurs regularly at WT:MOS (or has been seen in the ongoing title dispute). I also considered MFD but felt it would be WP:POINTY to nominate it myself given my prior revert. Jessintime (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC) Statement by Hey man im joshJust taking a moment to note that I'm writing something up to respond with. I know it's unlikely this gets closed before then, but I have an unreasonable fear it will be, so I'm just putting this placeholder here. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Geez, 5 of the 7 diffs are directed at me… guess I’m involved whether I like it or not. Responding to SMcCandlish’s reply about the diffs:
What I’m seeing in this AE is further doubling down by SMC. There are very clear pattern of long-term issues in how they approach discussions and handle their temper, and I fear that without a formal warning or punishment this type of behavior will only continue until addressed. I understand these methods may have “won” discussions but they're not healthy. It's literally a meme that people would rather deal with Israel–Palestine discussions as opposed to MOS, and I think SMC’s conduct in said discussions is a key reason why people are not involved in that area. They’re a large part of it and their behaviour needs to be addressed in some way, otherwise we’re sending a message that this type of behaviour is allowed. They clearly care about Wikipedia, but the damage they’re doing may have gotten to the point that it’s outweighing the positives. We need them to take some time to To be clear, I do not want SMC blocked indefinitely. It's clear they care about the quality of Wikipedia but the way they go about things has been causing harm for a while. The funny thing is it's not even them being wrong, they’re usually right, it's the approach, badgering, and instant bad faith assumptions I've witnessed constantly over the last couple months. They need to be told the way they conduct themselves is not appropriate, spend some time self reflecting on how their behaviour and words come across, and then hopefully come back as a productive editor. Also, it'd be appreciated if they could strike several of their comments directed at me and acknowledge how their behaviour has come across. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Statement by BilledMammalI just wanted to comment to first point out that whether MOS:DEADNAME is really part of the MOS or is instead mislabeled is a matter of a debate; Sideswipe, for example, has argued that it should be seen as, and given the weight of, BLP policy. I would be very hesitant to group alleged misbehavior related to that policy with alleged misbehavior related to the MOS. I have little opinion on the broader topic, but I do want to comment on It was appropriate, and not an assumption of bad faith, for SMcCandlish to call out the double standards, although they could have been less blunt about it. 22:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC) Statement by North8000I have just two narrow comments because I haven't taken a deep dive to learn the overall situation. On is on accusations of violating wp:AGF. WP:AGF is (rightly so) just a guideline and not a policy because is more of a general principle, and thus is broad and vague enough to be interpret-able to say that some common, logical and correct behaviors are wrong. Second, the complaint really doesn't make any case, it just relies on extracted out-of-context quotes to establish the complaint, which they don't. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Statement by DrmiesSMcCandlish, Hey Man, Sidewsipe--you all are among some of the most helpful and positive editors here. Please try to find a way to work this out. Acroterion and I would host you in our NYC parlor with coffee and pastries, but we have commitments elsewhere--please think of how much you all have meant to this project, and how much it has meant to you, and talk it over. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Statement by ApaugasmaI did not know about the AE restriction prohibiting SMcCandlish from making bad faith assumptions in MOS-related discussions, but exactly this happened to me back in September. After previously having raised a concern in a MOS discussion that my approach to sources might be cherry-picking, SMcCandlish posted notifications to VPP and NPOVN which flatly stated Meanwhile on the MOS talk page, SMcCandlish misinterpreted a Workshop proposal I made and concluded from this that Next, when I criticized a different, ngrams-based type of evidence SMcCandlish had presented for their position, they replied Since this incident I have removed all MOS pages from my watch list, because I simply do not want be confronted with such behavior. In general I have decided to spend a lot less time on WP, and this incident has been a catalyst in that decision. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by BookkuFollowing edit tool stats indicated prominent influence of User:SMcCandlish 1) WP:VPP tops in number of edits 958 (14.9%); tops in added text 752,054 (19.6%) Ref tool 2) WP:MOS Tops in Edit; Tops in number of Edit 1,005 (24.3%) In added text 3rd position 97,646 (13.5%) Ref tool 3) WT:MOS Tops in number of edits 5,276 (36.9%); Tops in added text 4,790,959 (53.4%) Ref tool I have had some small experience of conversing with the User (but not recent one). Since then I prefer to learn from the experienced users. If experienced influential users show good faith towards other well meaning users and show a little more accommodation can be more helpful in achieving the Wikipedia's goals. Bookku (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by ElinrubyInteresting that this thread is still open even as SMcCandlish has been assuming bad faith at my user page. (User talk:Elinruby#And on and on and on). TL;DR I pinged him in an ANI thread looking for confirmation of an Arbcom request he filed. The ANI involved a mistaken new user who found out they were mistaken and retracted the whole thing. SMcCandlish posted some discussion to my talk page about the need for civility. I responded at some length to his mistaken assumptions about the thread and pointing out that he had made the same Arbcom request also based on an assumption of bad faith (about someone else) but that I had supported it anyway because the e-e CT needs more sourcing restrictions in my opinion. He doubled down a couple of hours ago, still apparently without reading the thread, and said I have no opinion about the MoS dispute except that I fervently wish editors would pick something and move on. that is all Elinruby (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I am not advocating an EE sanction but it's an additional reason to have taken more care. I still suggest a logged warning, and oppose dismissing a decade of behaviour. It has also occurred outside MoS, so I ask that we not add a "in the MoS topic area" scope.
SM:"Focus on content (in the article, and in claims in the talk page) not on the editor who wrote it."19:50, 3 March
Noticeboard background: an AE complaint of "removal or concealment of the history of Lithuanian collaboration" ended in a warning for getting angry at the accusation. ("inappropriate remarks"). A later ANI complaint omits the outcome and says the editor "returned to his practices".
Not a listener.Elinruby (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by ThryduulfI've only just become aware this request was open, so apologies for the late response but based on the evidence presented, especially by Apaugasma and Elinruby (and evidence I would have presented if I'd known about this earlier) that this is an ongoing problem that has not stopped since this AE thread was opened I do not thing a simple reminder is sufficient. It is plausible that they forgot about their restriction at first (although nobody should require a reminder to not assume bad faith, especially when doing so has been called out by multiple people in multiple discussions), but it is not plausible they forgot it again since it was brought here. In my view a logged warning is the minimum appropriate level of sanction. A block would be excessive, but adding something enforceable to the restriction would not be - perhaps allowing uninvolved administrators to ban them from any discussion which they assume bad faith and/or mischaracterise the arguments of others (in any manner which is not clearly a genuine misunderstanding)? Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning SMcCandlish
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Sennalen
Appeal declined. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:32, 13 March 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 SennalenThe block violated WP:Blocking policy.
Some well-meaning but misplaced concerns were raised about the WP:CLEANSTART policy. It is not required to notify anyone when making a clean start. The policy page's advice about not editing in controversial topics pertained to avoiding past misdeeds, which was not a circumstance that pertained to me. Bradv confirmed that I was not under any prior sanctions and that I have a legitimate reason not to disclose my former account name. Disruption was alleged in multiple CTOPs, but all of the actions attributed to me either did not take place or do not constitute disruptions according to Wikipedia policy. There is no cause to believe I will cause disruption at a later time.
To recap, with reference to the criteria at WP:BLOCKP:
Statement by GalobtterI give a couple examples of the evidence for the block re the cultural marxism and covid issues here. I also want to point out that Sennalen believes that Covid stems from a bioengineered lab leak ([91], [92]), which probably explains why like I said she used a news source to undercut a scientific source that said otherwise. For the race and intelligence topic area, Generalrelative gives a good summary of the issues at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 180#Essay on fringe guidelines. For clarity the Eyferth study RfC mentioned there is at here and is about this content which is very much about race and intelligence, despite what Sennalen says at that discussion. Galobtter (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by Bon courageI was one of the named editors in Sennalen's AE filing which boomeranged into their block. One only needs to look at the various unblock request(s) to get an idea of what would likely follow in the case of an unblock: arguments at length rooted in a premise of "I am right and everybody else is wrong". This would be a big time sink for the community and a negative for the Project. Bon courage (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by KoA (Sennalen)The link wasn't directly included, so here is the AE where Sennalen was sanctioned. I commented as someone uninvolved back then, and the overall discussion among editors was not whether or not to sanction them, but rather how wide the scope needed to be due to disruption in multiple topics. I'm still not seeing any recognition of the problems with their behavior in WP:FRINGE topics and elsewhere in this filing, but rather WP:IDHT. The block came across pretty clear as that behavior butting up against WP:NOTHERE when many topic-bans would be needed to try to allow them to edit at this point. KoA (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by XMcanMy question is procedural: How does someone transition abruptly from being a senior editor, essentially a hero with no prior blocks, to a perceived villain warranting a complete editing ban? Has this user done one thing that was so egregiously disruptive as to earn this measure, or is this deemed a “straw that broke the camel's back” type of situation? If it's the latter, why haven't there been any prior warnings, pblocks, or tbans, as is typical in other cases? The best way for the appellant to demonstrate that they are not disruptive is to let them edit something unrelated to the problematic areas. I vote to change the siteban to a tban, or tbans if necessary. XMcan (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC). Edited 12:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by SennalenStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)Result of the appeal by Sennalen
|
Salmoonlight
Salmoonlight (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from making edits anywhere on Wikipedia regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. This topic ban is per consensus of uninvolved administrators in this arbitration enforcement thread.Participants are also generally reminded that accusations of gaming the system require evidence and should not be made lightly; they are reminded to not cast aspersions when making such accusations.— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:43, 12 March 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 Salmoonlight
Multiple WP:1RR/edit warring violations. They have been requested to self revert the violations at Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident, but have neither replied to the request nor done so, despite having continued editing including on the articles talk page. At Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident, they violated 1RR with edits to different content:
At Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell, they violated 1RR and 3RR while edit warring with Alpoin117 over the same content.
Discussion concerning SalmoonlightStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SalmoonlightThe Alpoin117 reverts are irrelevant as Alpoin was being purposefully disruptive and vandalizing articles. Salmoonlight (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by LegalSmeagolianI'd highlight this is an additional case of BilledMammal trying to use AE to WP:GAME a victory in I-P content disputes - this is evidenced by BilledMammal including reverts of Alpoin117's, which were obvious instances of vandalism and not subject to the 1RR. Inclusion of these diffs is groundless and vexatious. BilledMammal has been warned to not use AE in this way yet has done so twice this week. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I request the uninvolved administrators look at WP:VANDALISM prior to a topic ban decision. "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia." - Alpoin's edits, adding POV through an unsourced claim that the statements were "Misleading polarizing" was clearly WP:OR and violated WP:NPOV, therefore was vandalism as described above. Any argument that Alpoin was making such edits in good faith (to improve the encyclopedia) does not apply as he kept editing disruptively and his response to his ban shows the intent of the edits were not good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia rather were to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I've said my piece. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Sameboat (about Salmoonlight)WP:3RRNO lists "3. Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users" in one of the exemptions of 3RR/1RR. Alpoin117 (talk · contribs) clearly satisfies the exemption of counting towards 1RR. Newsweek may not be the best source to support the statement which cites it, the statement itself is rather harmless and didn't justify the removal by Alpoin117. Apart from sockpuppetry, Alpoin117 was clearly not here to make constructive contribution by adding this defamatory statement about Bushnell without citing any reliable source.[93] -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC) @BilledMammal: Alpoin117 was blocked on 28 Feb 2024 for "Personal attacks on another editor in violation of previous unblock conditions, POV pushing, edit warring" (read the user's contributions page) when the only article they edited was self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell. There was a discussion on ANI on 28 Feb exactly about disruptive edits by Alpoin117 regarding the self-immolation article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC) @BilledMammal: 3RRNO is not only about sockpuppetry but "banned users in violation of a ban" who violated their "previous unblock conditions" for edits on the self-immolation article. I am not going to argue about Alpoin117 with you anymore. It's getting unfruitful. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC) @Firefangledfeathers: As long as Salmoonlight vows to never violate 1RR again, they would not face any form of topic ban this time. Am I right? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC) @LegalSmeagolian: If all the admins don't see the "misleading polarizing" edit by Alpoin problematic at all, there is no hope to convince them. I think it's time to let it go. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC) @Firefangledfeathers: Just for clarification: Violation of OR or NPOV does not necessarily constitute vandalism. Is that right? 14:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by FirefangledfeathersCharges of gaming against BM depend on a finding that Alpoin117's edits were either vandalistic or in violation of a ban. Neither is true. I am much less worried that BM might be gaming than that the other participants might continue to edit in ARBPIA with a mistaken sense of what counts as vandalism or ban evasion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by NableezyThe edit war with Alpoin would have been better handled by coming here to report that user, as their edits were both 1RR violations and unquestionably tendentious, as in this one making a personal judgment, ditto for this one, and that they were edit-warring against multiple users and had blown past the 1RR. Alpoin117 reverted five users six times there, but the portrayal of that edit war here is Salmoonlight vs Alpoin117, and that just isnt true. Should Salmoonlight have reverted as many times as they had? No, of course not, but the complete picture doesnt really support the idea that Salmoonlight should be sanctioned for it. And going back to a 5 days stale edit-war does indeed strike me as one of those things people who are trying to remove the competition do. The other violation has already been self-reverted, something I thought it was standard practice to ask for before coming here, that is if somebody is not just trying to remove the competition. nableezy - 01:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Cullen328I am commenting here at this time only because I was pinged by Salmoonlight. Yes, I blocked Alpoin117 and my reasoning can be found at User talk:Alpoin117. Any editor could have found that quite easily. That does not at all imply that I think that Salmoonlight is blameless. I have some concerns about this editor's behavior but I have not yet investigated closely enough to say anything definitive at this time. So, I may (or may not) comment in the future. I am working on many other things. Cullen328 (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by (Ad Orientem)I can confirm that I was the original blocking admin for Alpoin117. The block was broadly speaking for disruptive editing, which in this instance also included personal attacks on other editors. Subsequently I unblocked them subject to conditions laid out on their talk page which included a one year TBan from any involvement in AfD discussions and related editing. I also explicitly warned them that they would be on a very short rope with regards to any future disruptive behavior including NPA. They affirmed their understanding and acceptance of those conditions. Unfortunately they failed to keep their end of the agreement. I was pinged to an ANI discussion, but Cullen328 got there first and reblocked them indefinitely. I took a look at the issues and fully endorsed Cullen's block. I am not familiar with the broader issues being discussed here and so respectfully decline to comment further at this time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by MakeandtossThis is the fourth or seventh (I lost count) attempt by BilledMammal to get users they don't agree with banned in less than two months, usually based on implausible claims of 1RR violations. I don't think it's a sign of constructive WP editing to spend more time trying to get users banned than constructively contributing to WP articles as their user contributions log reveals.
Statement by Zero0000Misunderstanding the boundaries between "disruptive edit", "policy-violating edit" and "vandalism" is a very common problem even for more experienced editors. It seems to me that a topic-ban would be excessive. Zerotalk 05:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by AquillionThe accusations of trying to "remove the competition" strike me as themselves dangerous. The fact is, in a controversial topic area, the people who notice and take the time to report misconduct are going to be those in dispute with a user - most people who edit controversial topics have at least some opinion on them; and few people closely examine the edits of those they agree with. If a report is valid (and clearly there was at least a 1RR violation here), any disputes the reporter had with the reportee don't matter; they're not required to be WP:UNINVOLVED, obviously. Otherwise there would be a chilling effect on people's willingness to report genuine problems, which would make enforcing AE restrictions extremely difficult. Likewise, "lots of people misunderstand what obvious vandalism is" can't possibly be a justification for 1RR / 3RR violations or those restrictions would have no meaning. Anyone who genuinely, truly believes that Alpoin117's edits were obvious vandalism should not be editing controversial topic areas at all; the idea that anyone could go "I feel that that edit maliciously violates NPOV, therefore it is vandalism and the 1RR/3RR doesn't apply" is obviously unworkable. --Aquillion (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Salmoonlight
|
KronosAlight
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.
Request concerning KronosAlight
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- KronosAlight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:ARBPS
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- [94] 10 March 2024—violating WP:PSCI
- [95] and [96] 11 March 2024—ad nauseam advocacy for violating WP:PSCI, WP:ASPERSIONS; see also their previous edits at that talk page wherein they accuse me of violating WP:NPOV.
- [97] 10 March 2024—accusing me you're on the wrong side of Wikipedia's rules on NPOV
- [98] 10 March 2024—accept that you are violating Wikipedia rules
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on [99] 10 March 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- I do not seek a formal sanction, but someone needs to tell them they need to take a break from WP:Advocacy for WP:FRINGE science.
- the claim that it has been definitively "refuted" with reference to a single paper isn't in line with how Wikipedia balances these important questions of neutrality, bias, and pseudoscientificity—this is not part of WP:RULES, they are inventing rules of their own making. In fact, citing Boslough (2023) is more than enough WP:V for the YDIH being pseudoscience.
- So, Boslough (2023) is sufficient for WP:V my view, and Holliday c.s. (2023) is an extra bonus.
- If you want an example: K.R. Popper admitted that Marx's predictions were scientific, but these predictions failed in the real world. So, it suffices to quote Popper in order to show that Marx was mistaken.
- @Aquillion: Wikipedia already has the article Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. There it is presented in full detail.
a maximalist interpretation
—for those in the know: a WP:FRINGE interpretation. And no, we don't incorporate fringe theories into mainstream articles. We don't incorporate pseudohistory into Bible scholarship articles.- @Nycarchitecture212: You should mind both WP:BOOMERANG and WP:SANTA. Accusations of antisemitism without providing evidence are WP:ASPERSIONS. What you ignore is that scholars belonging to Reform or Conservative Judaism, see e.g. [100], [101], [102], [103], and "consensus based on archaeology" at [104], also oppose fundamentalist pseudohistory. And secular Jews completely oppose it. I'm not saying that Orthodox Jews are bad people. All I am saying is that their views about Ancient Israel have been debunked by mainstream historians and mainstream archaeologists.
- @ScottishFinnishRadish: I don't think it was their first time, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1150#Nycarchitecture212 is deleting mainstream scholarship about Judaism. Especially [105]. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [106] 11 March 2024
Discussion concerning KronosAlight
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.
Statement by KronosAlight
I don't support the theory under discussion. It's at best an amusing science fiction narrative, but doesn't have (at least yet) any serious scientific backing.
As a simple statement of principle, a single academic research paper claiming to have debunked a theory propounded by multiple other authors with their own peer-reviewed academic research papers cannot be the basis for a claim in the 'voice' of Wikipedia that a theory has been "refuted" (which is the wording apparently desired) of neutrality vis-a-vis NPOV. This wouldn't hold in any other field or area of discussion, otherwise every paper claiming to have refuted Karl Marx for example would have been considered definitive, rather than a field of open and intense contestation. We would, at minimum (and I've been contributing to Wikipedia for 11 years now), take a passive voice of 'Critics claim that ...' for example, or some variation thereof.
There is nothing wrong with saying something alone the lines of, 'The theory has been considered pseudoscientific by critics' followed by the citation. There *is* a problem with the line "The theory has been refuted" followed by a single citation to a single paper. That is very, very rarely how research papers work.
Tgeorgescu was invited repeatedly to provide further citations - because, of course, multiple papers over a sustained period by peer-reviewed journals is a legitimate basis upon which a Wikipedia article can verify the verdict of falsity or pseudo-scientificity.
He has not done so, when it would have been much easier than endlessly arguing with me for simply enforcing NPOV.
I invite him yet again to do so - if a scientific theory has in fact been *refuted* (i.e. conclusively demonstrated to be false), it should not be difficult to find citations to reputable peer-reviewed scienific journals demonstrating so. In fact I suspect he would not find it difficult to find multiple papers seeking to debunk the claims made in this context, which might make such a cumulative case.
The easiest resolution would be for Tgeorgescu to simply cite the papers he claims (and I think do) exist in a new edit in order to justify the original wording of the article. I have no problem with him doing so and the wording then remaining the same. The Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis is not considered mainstream science, and this too would be fair to note in the article in question, but the claim that it has been definitively "refuted" with reference to a single paper isn't in line with how Wikipedia balances these important questions of neutrality, bias, and pseudoscientificity.
- I'm not endorsing the theory – I think it's basically science fiction, a mad mixture of Ancient Astronaut Theory and Young Earth Creationism. But you need more than just one paper which has received little coverage and, last time I checked, basically no citations of its own, in order to justify the claim that it has been "refuted", which is a conclusive and final claim, not a provisional one.
- If the citation of a single academic paper (and I of course do not doubt that the paper itself was subject to entirely valid crutiny via a rigorous peer-review process) is "more than enough" to declare a niche scientific theory "debunked", then I do wonder what the minimal Wikipedia requirements might be to make such a claim. What’s the ‘low bar’, compared to this ‘high bar’?
- That isn't how the scientific process works, which necessarily involves back-and-forth disputes in which multiple researchers and schools of thought claim to have 'debunked' the other, nor is it how Wikipedia adjudicates the truth or falsity of the claims to pseudoscientificity, which has a higher threshold of proof.
- You and I both know a number of other scientific papers exist which claim to have debunked the hypothesis. Just take 5 minutes to go find them and cite them and fix the article. I won't argue with you if you do that. KronosAlight (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Aquillion
Regardless of what decision is reached here regarding WP:ASPERSIONs and the like, it would probably be best to take this to WP:FRINGEN. I think theory is obviously fringe, but how to best describe that and what sources to use for it still requires some thought; people at WP:FRINGEN are more likely to be able to answer that question. --Aquillion (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Nycarchitecture212
KronosAlight I'm sorry that you've also had a negative interaction with this individual. A few days ago, he attempted the same thing with me. When I messaged him on the article's talk page expressing my concerns, he didn't engage with them at all. He rigidly adheres to one academic narrative regarding biblical scholarship and condescends to anyone with a maximalist interpretation. Personally, I've decided to cease interactions with him. Regrettably, based on my experiences, he appears to be a contentious editor who doesn't engage in discussions and debates in good faith. He frequently reverts edits without delving into the details on talk pages and endeavors to impose his narrow point of view, exploiting Wikipedia policies to suppress discourse and shape articles from a singular perspective rather than incorporating multiple academic viewpoints. While I'm not certain about Wikipedia conventions in such situations or the specific rules he may be violating, it seems implausible that his conduct is permissible. I do think the wording was a little choppy, but your request for him to bring more sourcing is valid and the right way to move the conversation forward.
He also reverted my edits of an anti-Jewish trope about pigs and blood that was poorly sourced and unrelated to the article. The trope of Jews and pigs and blood is best well known in Judensau (German for "Jew-sow") a derogatory and dehumanizing image of Jews that appeared around the 13th century. Its popularity lasted for over 600 years and was revived by the Nazis. Jews, who were typically portrayed as having obscene contact with unclean animals such as pigs or owls or representing a devil, appeared on cathedral or church ceilings, pillars, utensils, etchings, etc.
He has a self-described ax to grind with Jews that he describes as a cult perputrating pseudohistory and was ranting about this again a few days ago which got his post struck. One of the consequences of that is he is subtly pushing a pseudohistory revisionist agenda to describe ancient Jews solely as Yahewists and to erase any mention of Judaism from articles about ancient Jewish figures including the Ahab and in the Abrahamic Religions articles. It's important to note that while some Yahewists may be Jewish, not all Yahewists are Jewish. Therefore, it's inappropriate to categorize these ancient Israel characters (mythical or not) solely as Yahewists. I attempted to update it but he reverted my changes and circumvents the responsibility of having good faith discussions. I hope that a level-headed administrator will thoroughly investigate these matters. Such action would send a clear message about the true culture of Wikipedia. - Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not quite; I feel quite confident in my characterization and felt an obligation to weigh in to defend KronosAlight and share my experience. I've never had to contribute to one of these posts before but Tgeorgescu's heavy-handed use of admin resources, approach to sourcing and lack of good faith are genuinely concerning, something I've never encountered before.
- My attempts to engage in discussion on talk pages with this user have been sidestepped, and he has made some objectionable statements in the past, which other users have noted that I should be able to raise.
- I've raised valid concerns, most recently regarding the edit about pig's blood on the Ahab page he insists on, and his disregard for my input on the Abrahamic Religions talk page. If you look at what I wrote, it makes quite a lot of sense. Since you are contemplating a logged warning for speaking up, I'm here to contribute positively in good faith and enjoy myself; I didn’t come here looking for trouble. My area of expertise is uncommon and provides a valuable perspective within the framework of Wikipedia policy and discourse. Articles flourish when multiple views converge, and new information is synthesized through discourse. If you 100% disagree with what I wrote, it would be helpful if you could address my specific concerns, and then offer advice on how to refine my approach if necessary, which requires more work but is far more productive and positive. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Here's the full quote: The POV of Orthodox Jews upon early Judaism is to a large extent void currency inside the mainstream academia. In mainstream history, it's void. Same as Jehovah's Witnesses dating the fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE. Despite your protestations, it is clear that both these groups promote cult pseudohistory. I do have an ax to grind against pseudohistory, especially against fundamentalist pseudohistory." tgeorgescu (talk) 22:1233, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
This statement could be considered controversial or offensive, as it directly criticizes the perspectives of certain religious groups, labeling them as promoters of "cult pseudohistory." The use of the term "void currency" suggests that the views of Orthodox Jews on early Judaism are completely disregarded in mainstream academia, which is a broad and potentially misleading generalization. Similarly, equating the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding the fall of Jerusalem with pseudohistory could be seen as dismissive or disrespectful.
The phrase "I do have an ax to grind against pseudohistory, especially against fundamentalist pseudohistory" indicates a strong bias against certain interpretations of history, which could be interpreted as antagonistic towards groups associated with those interpretations.
While the speaker may intend to express a commitment to historical accuracy, the language used can be seen as targeting specific religious groups, which might be perceived as anti-Jewish or anti-religious sentiment. It’s important to critique specific historical claims or methodologies without broadly dismissing or demeaning the perspectives of entire communities. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Moved to correct section. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning KronosAlight
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I might otherwise see this as a content dispute, but I'm quite concerned by the type of attitude displayed even at this very request:
You and I both know a number of other scientific papers exist which claim to have debunked the hypothesis. Just take 5 minutes to go find them and cite them and fix the article. I won't argue with you if you do that.
If you know about more sources for the claim, and think it needs more, you ought to be adding them, not removing the claim even though you apparently know it's verified. That's textbook tendentious editing, and if that's how this KronosAlight intends to handle situations like this, I rather wonder if they should be editing in this area (or indeed, any area) at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)- As to Nycarchitecture212, you seem to have rather grossly mischaracterized the statements you are supposedly quoting. That's not appropriate either. I think there needs to be at least logged warnings issued here, if not more, but would like some additional input if anyone has any. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that there should be at least a logged warning. The editing is so pointy that I wouldn't object to a topic ban, though I lean slightly towards a logged warning in this case as there hasn't been a pattern of this behavior presented. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- As to Nycarchitecture212, you seem to have rather grossly mischaracterized the statements you are supposedly quoting. That's not appropriate either. I think there needs to be at least logged warnings issued here, if not more, but would like some additional input if anyone has any. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nycarchitecture212, as to how to "refine your approach", as you stated, you might start by not characterizing someone's statement that they "have an ax to grind against pseudohistory, especially against fundamentalist pseudohistory" as "[having] an ax to grind with Jews". Either you are implying that Jews in general are engaged in fundamentalist pseudohistory, or you are totally mischaracterizing the statement to make it look inflammatory and unacceptable when it was not. Whichever one of those it is, that's completely inappropriate. And if you can't recognize it as such, I have my doubts as to whether you should continue editing in this topic area at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose I can, given that, see how you got there without it being as bad, but let's not see something like that again. As to resolution, I would go forward with the logged warning, and hope that will suffice to settle things down. If not and we're back here again, we can decide what more to do at that point. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Jarek19800
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.
Request concerning Jarek19800
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Rosguill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Jarek19800 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#Contentious_topic_designation
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 12 March outright WP:OR ("left", let alone "far left" is mentioned nowhere in the article and no new source is provided), and expresses a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality vis-a-vis Polish media
- 8 March edit warring and claiming support from the talk page discussion, when the state of Talk:Mikhail_Kalinin does not support it
- 6 March Personal attacks against The Kip (albeit before being warned of CTOPS)
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 6 March.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- In addition to the above diffs displaying tendentious editing behavior, in general, Jarek19800's conduct in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#oko_press_Poland-_propaganda_can_be_reliable_source? exhibits a WP:RGW and battleground mentality. If I weren't involved in that discussion, or else I would have likely imposed sanctions myself. A block is likely most appropriate here, as their sole edit outside the Eastern Europe topic is a transphobic comment at Talk:Death of Nex Benedict. signed, Rosguill talk 21:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Jarek19800
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.
Statement by Jarek19800
I finally understand with my students the idea of this section.In 500 words than: this kind of action shall never happen on someone who 1. has only 10 or similar edits 2. most of edits were in Talks section which is defined for open discussion 3. all my edits were always(apart one explained below) with note and logic 4. no vulgarity or vandalism. All edits were on 2 following topics:a. Mikhail Kalinin-one of top five communist leaders(agreed and evidenced) one of five who signed order for Katyn massacre with 20000 victims (agreed and evidenced). One of editors reedited it from header on base it is not fundamentally important as Kalinin was figurehead (not agreed and against a logic).b:oko press with label far left. this was not documented but the same(not documented far right)was on blocked for editing Visegrad 24. Action successful far-right deleted on Visegrad 24. Standard recovered; In case of Talks section unless clear vandalism shall not be mentioned at all. Just remark for other editor: how one sentence request for official fact can violate 3 policies of Wikipedia??? Another editor on Talks section first "invited" me to open discussion on reliability of oko press as a source and quickly joined the action here. I can see from above that free speech which is based on facts and logic is unpleasant to some people but encyclopedia concept is in my opinion not for them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarek19800 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by WeatherWriter
Just had a comment relevant to this. This may be a case of a CTOPS COI. Visegrád 24 was recently protected due to double CTOPS (PIA and Russia-Ukraine), but the reason for this was brought up at AN, due to the subject of the article, Visegrád 24, posting on Twitter (March 2) to have editors "fix" the article from propaganda. On March 3, Jarek19800, as well as maybe a dozen newer accounts on March 2-4, became heavily involved in the article and its content with mass editing (see article history on 2 March prior to protection) and talk page discussions. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by The Kip
In a hurry at the moment so my full statement will come later, but just wanted to note I support a topic ban at the very least if not an indef. The Kip 22:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Joy, my first AE case. Jarek’s conduct over the last week has been misguided at best and disruptive at worst:
- Ideologically-driven editing: This RSN discussion of Oko.press; Jarek has insisted OKO.press is unreliable “propaganda” because they (supposedly) haven't criticized the current Polish government, while also claiming without sources that most Polish media is controlled by leftists.
- Failure to understand WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:DUE: Both the discussion and Mikhail Kalinin. Jarek repeatedly added to the latter’s lead that he was responsible for the Katyn massacre, attributing this claim to a primary source; however, it only backs the claim that Kalinin co-signed the order, not that he held significant responsibility. I explained on the talk page how this claim violated WP:OR and WP:V due to the lack of a proper source, and WP:DUE as a result; however, I never received a response, although an attempt seems to have been caught in an edit filter. At the Oko discussion, Jarek repeatedly asserted claims without any reliable sources in support, such as the above claims, that there's an anti-PiS “media monopoly” in Poland, or generally claiming Oko to be unreliable propaganda simply because “it is." On the two occasions he did provide “sources,” they were a single article from a right-wing newspaper and his own interpretation(s) of Oko statements.
- Failure to understand consensus: Stated that the discussion should be closed as WP:GUNREL based on his own opinion, despite four WP:GREL votes at the time. After WeatherWriter explained WP:V and consensus to him, Jarek insisted that because “nobody questioned his links,” we should simply agree it’s GUNREL.
- Battleground editing, PAs, and aspersions: Said I should be deleted from the Oko discussion for "hiding the facts concerning Soviet murderers,” implied I opposed his edits in order to defend “left-wing elements” , and claimed via edit summary that my Kalinin claim removal was "defending the communist mass murderer.”
In short, Jarek has shown at best a lack of understanding and at worst a complete disregard for Wikipedia policy on numerous occasions, in addition to casting plenty of aspersions about those opposed to him. Barring a massive behavioral shift (which his statement doesn’t indicate), I don’t see him becoming a constructive contributor to either the topic area or Wikipedia as a whole, and I’m supportive of either a TBAN or indef. The Kip 07:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
:@Firefangledfeathers, point of clarification - is the 500-word limit based off the response in Wikitext (which currently clocks my statement in at 500 exactly), or in normal/visual text (which has it just under 400)? I'm unfortunately not quite experienced with AE. The Kip 06:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Here's why the claim violated all three:
- WP:V: Information, especially contentious claims, must be verifiable via a reliable source. Claiming in the lead that Kalinin held responsibility for the massacre somewhat implies he held sole/major responsibility, which your source (the execution order) doesn't verify; it lists him as one of six signatories, while RSes consider Stalin and Beria responsible.
- Reasserting this using that source is WP:OR; your own opinion/synthesis of information can't back a claim.
- Furthermore, it's undue weight to add this to the lead when it doesn't appear to be a mainstream view among RSes.
- I've explained this multiple times now. The Kip 22:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Result concerning Jarek19800
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- @Jarek19800: Our behavioral guidelines call upon us to not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Would you please explain your rationale for making this edit, as well as the extent to which your rationale is (in-)consistent with that guideline? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- In my view, when Jarek19800 wrote
if Visegrad 24 is far right than it is obvious that oko press is far left. it is stright and direct logic
, that sentence shows both a lack of understanding of our sourcing requirements and a failure to engage in logical thinking. Cullen328 (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC) - I agree with Cullen328 on both parts, and given that do not think that Jarek19800 should be editing in this topic area. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- There's enough WP:BATTLEGROUND-adjacent misconduct here for me to support an indef EE TBAN. I hope Jarek19800 gets a chance to edit in a less contentious topic area, learns more about how disputes should go here, and posts a competent appeal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Clerking
- @Jarek19800: you need to keep your comments in your own section, and please be aware of the 500-word limit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Jarek19800: thank you for the kind words. You need to keep your comments here in the Statement by Jarek19800 section. You're now over the word limit, so you may want to trim. I've removed your 18:37 comment, since it was made after the word limit breach. Please do not add further comments unless you've trimmed below 500 or are requesting an extension. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- @The Kip: we count "normal/visual text" words. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Zilch-nada
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.
Request concerning Zilch-nada
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- JayBeeEll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Zilch-nada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Contentious topic designation
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- Longstanding and systematic use of dismissive and belittling tone towards other editors:
- 2 July 2023
- 2 July 2023
- 27 September 2023
- 15 December 2023
- 12 March 2024
- 13 March 2024 (a response to a request to retract a personal attack)
- 13 March 2024
- 14 March 2024
- 14 March 2024 (a response to a request by a third party to retract a personal attack)
- 1 February 2024
- 1 February 2024
- 7 February 2024
- Bludgeoning discussions in the face of clear consensus, and battleground behavior: I'm not exactly sure how to show this in diffs, but they've made roughly a dozen comments on Talk:Sarah Jeong and about twice that many at Talk:Gender, rehashing longstanding settled questions, taking a heavily argumentative (rather than consensus-building) approach, and not desisting despite the evident failure of their efforts to draw any support. Here's a sampling to try to illustrate the basic tenor of their contributions:
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 17 January 2023 (see the system log linked to above).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Basically this user wants to use talk-pages as a debating society, in sensitive topic-areas. Their corrosive behavior is not limited to contentious topics (see e.g. this early edit summary) but their editing is heavily focused on contentious areas. I think that it would be good if they were firmly directed away from contentious topics, and battleground editing more generally. --JBL (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I've added three additional diffs of inappropriate behavior on a different page (Talk:Gender-critical feminism) in the topic area. Also, it is worth observing that the contentious edit (13 March) on Gender (whose reversion led to some of the discussions mentioned above) came after this earlier discussion (9–10 February) in which two editors objected and none supported the proposed edit. --JBL (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Zilch-nada
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.
Statement by Zilch-nada
(I am requesting to exceed the 500 word limit.)
As I responded to Sandebeouf on my talk page, I apologised for my edit on Sarah Jeong, blindly not seeing the editing notice (I was not aware that the article itself was so contentious.) Furthermore, the notion of BLUDGEONING is a very difficult one to make. "Typically, this means making the same argument over and over, to different people". I have never even done this. In fact, if you see the talk pages across Reverse racism, Sarah Jeong, and Gender - contentious areas which editors accuse me of misconduct -, I have employed different arguments depending on the shifting of consensus. For instance, at Gender I proposed that the "man"/"woman" dichotomy was unclear, and then first suggested to replace to "male"/"female" (which was reliably sourced). Following that being not particularly accepted, I proposed changing the definition to relate to "man"/"woman"/boy/girl as it corresponded with the particular source (the WHO) that had been particularly cited. As for the talk page on Sarah Jeong, I likewise said that a particular statement was out of context. My first idea was to lengthen to statement to employ quotations of tweet(s) which I thought were strangely absent, then, as that clearly didn't seem popular, I suggested shortening the statement as I felt that the current wording of three lines was very awkward not to include quotations.
I don't treat talk pages as debating societies. But that does not mean there is no room for debate. If I make a couple of comments that are individually responded to by different people, I'll continue to respond to them; I never opened up any separate, unrelated discussion upon any discussion I was in. I was only responding to fellow talk page editors.
Furthermore, what is quite vague is the notion "Bludgeoning discussions in the face of clear consensus". There was no clear consensus on the article talk page for Sarah Jeong; the 2018 standing was established from no consenus in 2018: Likewise, even though it clearly seemed that multiple editors in the past few days have formed what seems to be a new consensus in opposition to quotation of tweets, I, as mentioned aboved, opined the shortening of the contentious statement, for the same reason as my original; the statement was awkward, and lacking context. Sandebeouf accuses me of misconduct on Reverse racism, when I was solely pointing out the flaws of the current wording, considering the flaws of the sources - not ignoring them. User:Crescent77 was also a user challenging the main opinion in that discussion. The article talk page on Gender does not have such a clear cut consensus in recent discussion (of course I understand that the current wording is consensus, requiring consensus to be changed), unlike the claims, because I was in conversation with only two people; User:Beccaynr and User:-sche. As there was no consensus among a mere three people, I have considered opening up an RfC, for the main purpose of widening the discussion. I am well aware of that route and acknowledge that it is regularly more suitable than so-called "holding the stick".
Otherwise, I do apologise for any usage of belittling language towards other editors; much of my edit summaries early into this account were admittedly immature (this is my first account), and I aim much more now for civility. As per the list of accusations; I agree that no.2, no.3, and the recent no. 5 and no.6 were unjustified. The no.5 and no.6 I apologised for recently in my talk page. As for the other accusations, I don't know how you could construe "Stop it with the patronizing" as dismissive, other than it being against dismissiveness, and no.7 (I genuinely have no idea how what I said here was in any way uncivil). Regardless, I sincerely apologise for the two main things I am accused of: Dismissiveness and debative attitude. I understand the solutions for the first and the second respectively; for dismissiveness, to listen to and respect people who I myself find dismissive, and for debative attitude, consider "dropping the stick", or potentially opening the discussions to wider realms such as RfCs. --Zilch-nada (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Response to Sangdebeouf's first comment; as above, I was not the only dissenter in that discussion.
- Response to Sangdebeouf's third comment; I responded to a statement which outright ignored what I was arguing for. I responded to the statement, ""reverse racism"...not a description of reality", because it was frankly an outright strawman, as I clearly never suggested the concept mirror reality whatsoever. Perhaps "strawman" is a better word than "polemic"; either way, I was responding to bad-faith arguments.
- Zilch-nada (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- JBL, I also genuinely do not see how no. 9 and no. 12 were uncivil at all. No. 9 was in fact an apology, and I have since struck out my statement in the talk page that I apologised for in no. 9. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Sangdeboeuf
I also advised Zilch-nada that CTOP applies to biographies of living persons at 22:55, 14 March 2024. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- See also Zilch-nada's WP:BLUDGEONING of discussions in the archives of Talk:Reverse racism, which is within the American politics topic area. They are often the sole voice pushing for a contentious change to the article, e.g. Talk:Reverse racism/Archive 9#Reverted edit, where they display a lack of WP:CIVILITY as well as a failure to WP:LISTEN. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- For an example of the incivility I'm talking about, see their reply to NightHeron's brief explanation of the existing consensus on how to describe the topic of reverse racism, which Zilch-nada calls "disruptive polemic". If anyone is guilty of disruption in that thread it's Zilch-nada with their multiple WP:TEXTWALLs arguing points that
havehad already been discussed multiple times. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC) edited 01:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- For an example of the incivility I'm talking about, see their reply to NightHeron's brief explanation of the existing consensus on how to describe the topic of reverse racism, which Zilch-nada calls "disruptive polemic". If anyone is guilty of disruption in that thread it's Zilch-nada with their multiple WP:TEXTWALLs arguing points that
Statement by Beccaynr
On 15 March 2024, I wrote notes on Zilch-nada's usertalk [108], [109], about Zilch-nada's conduct in the Talk:Gender discussion Zilch-nada opened on 9 February 2024 (permalink), after some review of Zilch-nada's usertalk history, including a 16 December 2023 note [110] about WP:BLUDGEON from HTGS, described as "just as something to keep in mind; something to think about", and an 11 September 2023 note from Dlthewave [111] that includes discussion of "excessively long comments" and refers to Zilch-nada's participation at Talk:Gender-critical feminism and Talk:Reverse racism.
Zilch-nada continued to restate their point/question on 18 March 2024 in the section I had opened at their usertalk [112]. From my view, three editors, including myself, have explained our perspectives about the current lead to Zilch-nada during the discussion at Talk:Gender that Zilch-nada opened on 9 February 2024 (permalink), links to past discussions were offered [113], and no one is obligated to answer to Zilch-nada's satisfaction.
I have since skimmed Zilch-nada's participation in discussion at Talk:Isla Bryan (permalink), which HTGS had referred to. I have some concerns about the potential for future disruptive conduct from Zilch-nada, including because of what seems like some WP:IDHT responses to constructive feedback offered about participation in the GENSEX topic area. Beccaynr (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Zilch-nada
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Fizzbuzz306
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.
Request concerning Fizzbuzz306
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Sideswipe9th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Fizzbuzz306 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 07:51, 12 March 2024, 08:27, 12 March 2024, 08:34, 12 March 2024 Engaging in an edit war against Rhain removing the high quality source Game Developer from Sweet Baby Inc.
- 08:45, 12 March 2024 In an edit summary, describes Rhain as "patronizing" them when pointing out that Game Developer is considered a reliable source, before banning Rhain from their talk page.
- 03:06, 17 March 2024 Personal attack against Aquillion:
Your opinion does not trump consensus. Your edit history demonstrates a very clear bias and your opinions on this matter are not relevant.
- 03:23, 17 March 2024 Casting aspersions about multiple editors
I realize several editors on this page want to tell a certain narrative but these sources are clearly lying.
- 03:29, 17 March 2024 Casting aspersions about multiple editors ignoring NPOV
The reason for that is certain editors here have forgotten [[WP::NPOV]] and only accept sources if they tell the narrative those editors want them to tell.
- 04:13, 17 March 2024 Describing a list of sources I provided as a gish gallop.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- 08:20, 12 March 2024 GENSEX CTOP notice
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
In short, this seems to be a continuation of the type of comment from multiple IP and non-autoconfirmed editors that lead to Talk:Sweet Baby Inc. being temporarily semi-protected. Unfounded accusations that longstanding experienced editors are biased and should not be editing the article, that multiple editors are ignoring NPOV, that reliable sources are not reliable and should be discarded. I suggest a topic ban from GENSEX/GamerGate at minimum, if not a block. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Callanecc: Short answer no. When I requested a TBAN I was frustrated by the continuing misconduct that lead to the talk page being semi-protected, and I was also coloured by the CU block for sockpuppetry that was lifted a couple of hours later. Upon reflection, as the current disruption has been limited to Sweet Baby Inc. I think a page block from the article and its talk page would be more appropriate here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Fizzbuzz306
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.
Statement by Fizzbuzz306
In order to defend against this I will need to be informed of the *specific* policy I have broken. Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Fizzbuzz306
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- @Sideswipe9th: Is there evidence of misconduct in this topic area that's unrelated to Sweet Baby Inc.?
@Fizzbuzz306: That you need to ask that question in response to the diffs that have been provided likely speaks more than you wanted it to. Have a look at WP:EW, WP:CIVIL, WP:V and WP:DE as starting points. As a fairly new editor please consider carefully what you say on this noticeboard. The standards expected of editors in these topic areas more higher and more rigorously enforced that in less contentious areas and that is especially the case here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- At the surface level, these edits are clear enough that a sanction could be justified. They also look like a new editor struggling to learn our ways, who's picked a topic area where there's much less leeway than is normally extended to new editors. It also seems that their first exposure to the internal machinery of Wikipedia might have given them some wrong ideas about what kind of language is tolerated on Wikipedia.[114] This astonishingly bad block by an Arbitrator, poor unblock decline from an admin, and clear casting of WP:ASPERSIONS established a hostile tone. Both did apologize, but we only have one chance to make a first impression. I'm not convinced that a sanction is needed at this point; the editor has contributed constructively elsewhere and I think giving them some advice on community norms might be the best chance of curbing disruptive discussion while retaining someone who wants to contribute positively. It should go without saying that if the disruptive comments do not stop, future reports wouldn't be as lenient. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)