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 |
---|---|---|---|
Aspersions cast by Thryduulf | 16 July 2024 | 0/7/1 |
Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
---|---|---|---|
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland | Motion | (orig. case) | 21 June 2024 |
Motion name | Date posted |
---|---|
Historical elections | 19 July 2024 |
Use this section to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. This page is for statements, not discussion.
|
Aspersions cast by Thryduulf
Initiated by Sandstein at 15:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Proposed parties
- Sandstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Thryduulf (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
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 July 2, section "British Rail DHP1"
Statement by Sandstein
In a WP:DRV request of 2 July 2024 regarding a WP:AFD closure I made (the substance of both proceedings are irrelevant to this request), Thryduulf, an administrator and oversighter, wrote: "Andy Dingley also states that it [the AfD] might have been closed as delete because they !voted keep, I don't have an opinion about whether that is true or not but iff it is then it's significantly problematic even ignoring everything else."
In doing so, Thryduulf accused me of misconduct in my capacity as an administrator. Namely, they falsely insinuated, without evidence, that I closed the AfD as "delete" merely because of alleged animosity against Andy Dingley. (To be clear, I hold no animosity against Andy Dingley, whom I do not know, nor did I let anything other than my assessment of policy-based rough consensus influence the AfD closure.)
This false allegation by Thryduulf violates the principle, recognized by ArbCom, that "an editor must not accuse another of misconduct without evidence" (WP:ASPERSIONS). It also violates the policy WP:NPA, and the WMF's universal code of conduct, particularly §2.2 (civility, collegiality), §3.1 (harassment) and §3.2 (using one's position and reputation to intimidate others).
For these purposes, it does not matter that Thryduulf cast the aspersions by couching them in terms of echoing an allegation made by Andy Dingley. This is because the effect is the same as if Thryduulf had made the allegations directly: a senior administrator falsely insinuates serious (and probably desysoppable) misconduct on my part in a prominent public forum.
After I objected to this false allegation, several editors agreed that it was an "off-base", "offensive, baseless aspersion" that should be struck. But Thryduulf did not do so or otherwise retract the aspersions. Instead, they sought to justify their aspersions by arguing that I failed to respond to the same aspersions when they were cast by Andy Dingley on my talk page. That is absurd, as nothing requires anyone to defend themselves against prohibited unsubstantiated accusations of misconduct (not even WP:ADMINACCT, which presupposes that queries are made in "reasonable good faith").
The above shows that Thryduulf seriously failed to meet the community's expectations regarding administrator conduct. I therefore respectfully request that ArbCom take up this case and take such disciplinary action as they deem appropriate.
WP:RFAR, as the last resort in dispute resolution, is the proper venue for this request because (a) only ArbCom can take disciplinary action against administrators, (b) the discussion of Thryduulf's comment at the DRV did not resolve the problem, and (c) it is clear from Thryduulf's statements in the DRV, cited above, that further discussions in other fora would not have helped either. Sandstein 15:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Maxim: Thank you for your questions. In my view, it would have been pointless to ask Thryduulf to retract their aspersion, since they already declined to follow the advice of multiple editors to do so in the DRV (and again here). It would also not ensure that such conduct does not reoccur, unless Thryduulf recognizes that what they did was wrong, and why.
- An AN thread would also not have been helpful. First, it would have had the counterproductive effect of bringing Thryduulf's baseless allegation to the attention of even more people (more, I assume, than watch this page). Second, where the conduct of a long-established editor with many wikifriends (as evidenced by the recusal) and holder of multiple advanced permissions is at issue, experience shows that AN(I) discussions lead to more heat than light and rarely to an remedy that is effective at preventing the reoccurrence of misconduct. Only ArbCom can shape such remedies.
- With respect to this being a single case, Cryptic's statement suggests that more similar conduct may come to light during the evidence phase; in my experience, such conduct rarely happens in isolation. Moreover, WP:ADMINACCT provides that "Administrators who seriously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner (...) may be sanctioned" such as for "Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility[)]", meaning that even a single case of serious personal attacks by an administrator warrants examination - particularly in the light of the UCoC and its enforcement guidelines. Sandstein 18:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: The evidence for your seriously acting in a problematic manner is linked to in the above request for arbitration. Sandstein 18:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Thryduulf
I have nothing more to say than I said in the DRV - I simply noted that allegations had been made by Andy Dingley and explicitly expressed no opinion regarding whether they were true or not. While some editors thought the allegations and/or the reporting of them were "off base" as Sandstein puts it, others such as SportingFlyer and Nfitz didn't see any personal attacks at all. The majority of participants did not comment one way or the other, presumably seeing it as irrelevant to the topic at hand. If any personal attacks were made they were made by Andy Dingley not me so it is particularly surprising to hear Sandstein say he has no problem with Andy making the comments. Given that the DRV has been closed a week, and both Sandstein and I have been active in the intervening period, I assumed this was all settled and everybody had moved on with their lives. To say I was startled to get the talk page notification is somewhat of an understatement - especially as there has been no discussion of this on my talk page, Sandstein's talk page, AN(I) or anywhere else that I am aware of. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- The issue Cryptic refers to is completely different - that was a blunt comment left by me as a description of actions Scott stated they took. Was I too blunt with the description? possibly, but they were not aspersions. If anybody does feel it worth taking that further (I don't), the best starting point would be to answer the question I asked at AN. Thryduulf (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Maxim given that the DRV page has been closed and archived a week now would striking it be appropriate and do anything more than draw extra attention to it? (although given the filing here, I suppose extra attention on the accusation is something Sandstein has no objection to?) Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Maxim (et al) I've now struck the quote at the closed DRV. Thryduulf (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Sandstein How is accusing me of "seriously or repeatedly acting in a problematic manner" without presenting evidence of such (vaguely speculating that if you file an arb case someone might throw some mud at the wall is not evidence) not you casting an aspersion? Thryduulf (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- You have linked to one instance of my quoting somebody else making an allegation. Even if you disregard the multiple people who have failed to see any problem with my quoting it, that is not evidence of "seriously acting in a problematic manner" and it is unarguably not evidence of anything repeated. Thryduulf (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- @North8000: (and Mangoe if I'm "the subject") Could I have a crumb of context please? Thryduulf (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment by Serial
I can just see how Andy's original "Sorry, but I'd assumed that Sandstein went with delete here just because I'd gone for keep
" could be taken as a (pretty low grade) aspersion, indicating that Sandstein was biased (not sure what level of aspersion it really rises too though). But, by all that's holy, how can a remark made by one editor possibly be interpreted as a personal attack by another?! All they did, surely, was repeat something someone else had said, while noting that, they personally "don't have an opinion about whether that is true or not
". Which Sandstein even mentions in their statement. ——Serial Number 54129 16:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Alalch E.
I agree that this was an aspersion and an uncollegial remark. Sandstein did well to ignore the original remark by Andy, as an isolated incident. But it is no longer an isolated incident when a second person picks up and repeats and amplifies the aspersion. Thryduulf, as an administrator (in particular because he is an administrator), is expected to know this, and he should have properly understood what it means for Sandstein to have ignored the remark. I don't think that it would have been productive to discuss this at ANI, because it is not an urgent incident or a chronic or intractable behavioral problem. It's a non-urgent incident, which significantly worsens Sandstein's experience on the site regardless. I don't think that Sandstein was obligated to start a discussion on Thryduulf's talk page after the latter wrote: You are not required to respond to things you consider aspersions, but if you don't then nobody knows that you consider it an aspersion
. There was enough conversation between Sandstein and Thryduulf, and the latter made his position clear and did not retract. As someone who comments in DRV, my observation is that any remark of the sort that Thryduulf made lowers the level of the forum, and worsens the atmosphere of collegiality that is normally present there. Thryduulf should not do this in the future.
While aspersions are personal attacks, I disagree with the following from Sandstein: It also violates ... the WMF's universal code of conduct, particularly ... §3.2 (using one's position and reputation to intimidate others)
. Both are administrators and I don't see a difference in power. (While Sandstein describes Thryduulf as a "senior administrator", there are in fact no senior administrators—all administrators are simply administrators—but if there had been, Sandstein would also have been a "senior administrator", in my view.)16:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Cryptic
This isn't isolated. A similar level of hostility - to whatever extent one's inclined to consider either exchange hostile - occurred at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 June 28#Disidrose. There was also some follow-up discussion at WP:AN. —Cryptic 16:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Floq
It is simply not true that only ArbCom can take disciplinary action against administrators. Administrators can be warned, topic banned, interaction banned, or even blocked by the community. The only thing that is ArbCom-only is a desysop.
It would set a good precedent for ArbCom to quickly reject this case request because not all dispute resolution steps have been tried. It doesn't take a month to determine that Thryduulf was kind of a dick, and Sandstein overreacted. And it doesn't take a week to determine that AN/ANI weren't tried. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: I think you are confusing the two different people User:AndyTheGrump and User:Andy Dingley. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Black Kite
I don't even see the problem here. Thryduulf clearly said "I don't have an opinion about whether that is true or not but if it is then it's significantly problematic". If we ended up here every time someone said "if *insert aspersion about X here* is true then *X should be sanctioned*" then this page would be flooded. Black Kite (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by North8000
99% of the time (including in interactions with me) Thryduulf has been excellent. One instance of the 1% they were badly out of line with (including from their own norms) in an interaction with me. One or two other possible ones are noted above. Maybe a nudge to strive to get that 99% closer to 100% from somewhere would be good, if this turns out to be such an instance. Maybe administrative action review, albeit for/was using using the admin imprimatur rather than the tools. North8000 (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC) @Thryduulf: Response: I'll send it by email and you decide. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by User:Mangoe
While I have had my go-'rounds with the subject, I'm not seeing where this needs to go forward. I have to agree that the AfD closure didn't make a lot of sense and I personally would have relisted, and had I participated, I would have gone with a merge given that this was a single prototype for a larger class. I think the comment was uncalled for but the reaction to it seems excessive. Can we just all move on? Mangoe (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Striking the first phrase as I have no intention of revisiting the past. Mangoe (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by 28bytes
I don’t think this needs to be a case, but I can also understand why someone would be ticked off at an administrator echoing an unsupported “big, if true!” allegation that disparages them.
Sandstein, what could Thryduulf do at this point for you to consider the issue resolved and obviate the need for a case? 28bytes (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Just Step Sideways
A lesson I learned the hard way is that sometimes it is better to left some things unsaid when closing a discussion if they don't really matter as to the end result. Whatever your intent may be, such comments can be interpreted in ways you did not anticipate, and drama can follow. I'd hope that Thryduulf now realizes this as well, having struck the offending comment out, which I believe satisfies WP:ADMINACCT, so I don't think there is a case here. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Robert McClenon (Thryduulf)
What remedy is Sandstein requesting against Thryduulf? If the remedy is anything less than desysopping for one aspersion, then ArbCom should decline the case because the community has not yet been asked to remind, warn, or admonish Thryduulf. If the remedy being asked is a desysop, then ArbCom should decline the case because the remedy is disproportionate to a one-time offense.
What started this is that an experienced non-admin editor, User:Andy Dingley, insulted the filing party on their user talk page by suggesting that they had closed an AFD contrary to their !vote out of spite. That was a low-level personal attack and should have either resulted in a short block or been ignored. I called out User:Andy Dingley and was also insulted, and then tried to ignore the trolling. Instead User:Thryduulf repeated the allegation (and has now stricken that repetition). Either User:Sandstein should ignore the low-level insult or ask for action against Andy Dingley, but the time to respond to the original insult is two weeks in the past. Not every cheap insult deserves to be repeated and quarreled about, even if an admin makes a second mistake of repeating the insult. User:Andy Dingley was acting like a troll and provoked a reaction, which should be allowed to subside. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Ivanvector
I'm curious why, since it's his comments that are at the center of this, AndyTheGrump has not been listed as a party? It seems relevant to this complaint that the editor who originally made the offending comment was recently the subject of a community discussion about their history of offensive behaviour, and is currently sitting out a week-long arbitration enforcement block resulting from that discussion. Had Andy not cast that blatant aspersion, we wouldn't be here. It was also suggested repeatedly in that discussion that Andy's behaviour was heading for an Arbcom case. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well the answer to why AndyTheGrump isn't listed here has been answered: I indeed have confused two different and entirely separate incidents. Apologies. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Softlavender
This looks like it's a snow decline, but even so I wonder why this was taken immediately to RFAR rather than to AN, which is always the primary initial port of call for minor or major admin-conduct issues. I respect both of these admins and the hard work and lengthy time they put into Wikipedia. I think this was a misunderstanding and something was sort of 'lost in translation', possibly coupled with perhaps some built-up past history or irritation which was not disclosed. I do not think a single sentence in a DRV warrants jumping to RFAR, and I hope Sandstein familiarizes himself on the venue that should have been used instead as the primary venue for this. Softlavender (talk) 02:22, 18 July 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.
Aspersions cast by Thryduulf: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- Noting that the original comment by Andy Dingley is at Special:Diff/1231516029. Posting this here as it is more of a clerking/housekeeping comment rather than "as an arb". Primefac (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Aspersions cast by Thryduulf: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/7/1>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
- Recuse. Thryduulf and I are good friends in real life so I'm duty bound to sit this one out. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thryduulf: could you please consider striking "Andy Dingley also states that it might have been closed as delete because they !voted keep, I don't have an opinion about whether that is true or not but iff it is then it's significantly problematic even ignoring everything else" from the DRV page? You're repeating an unsubstantiated accusation that's clearly prejudicial to Sandstein; to fling around something like that requires something resembling evidence at a minimum, and there has been nothing resembling evidence presented for that accusation. Sandstein: I think someone of your experience would know that ArbCom is not about to jump to a case over a single incident of throwing mud. Why not reiterate your request to Thryduulf to retract the comment on his talkpage, or barring that, start at thread at WP:AN? It seems to me an unnecessary escalation; Floq would have given the same advice at AN as he has here. Maxim (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think that WP:ARC is the biggest drama board of them all, especially when administrator conduct is involved. Going here, versus AN/ANI and maybe XRV, will tend to attract more attention than elsewhere because it's the highest-stakes environment. At this point, anyone into drama knows about the comment, so striking it at the DRV, even if it's been archived, is unlikely to bring significantly more attention. It would have the upside of being a formal retraction. While I don't want to appear to speak for my colleagues, ArbComs present and in the near past don't seem to have a habit of sanctioning administrators over a single incident, that, as far as single incidents go, is very much on the mild side. Maxim (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Decline, per everyone else below. Maxim (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Sandstein: Is
only ArbCom can take disciplinary action against administrators
something that can be found written somewhere? Policy (e.g. WP:BANDESYSOP) contradicts this, and administrators have been and should be subject to community sanctions. The disputes or complaints section of the Administrators policy reflects the fact that administrators are not above the normal dispute resolution processes and that these processes should generally be attempted prior to a case request, and this is not an extraordinary situation that would be an exception. The DRV discussion alone is not sufficient prior dispute resolution that would warrant a case. - Aoidh (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)- Decline - Per my above comment. - Aoidh (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Arbitration is a last resort and apparently not required at this time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Decline, primarily because the original content was struck, also per ToBeFree. Primefac (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Decline I don't see a need for us to act here --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Decline. I broadly agree with Maxim's comments here. As a general matter, although the threshold for accepting an ADMINCOND case is lower than the threshold for accepting a case
[t]o act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve
, the case request must provide enough information to determine that there is a serious case to considerremoval of administrative tools
. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy § Scope and responsibilities. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC) - Decline I don't think this rises to an incident where ArbCom is necessary. Z1720 (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
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:
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland
Initiated by My very best wishes at 23:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- World War II and the history of Jews in Poland arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- 5.1) My very best wishes is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
- 5.2) Based on their disruptive attempts to defend Piotrus and Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes is subject to a 1-way interaction ban with Piotrus and a 1-way interaction ban with Volunteer Marek, subject to the usual exceptions. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Information about amendment request
- Requesting the removal of the bans described in 5.1 and 5.2
Statement by My very best wishes
My editing restrictions were based on the findings of fact about my comments during the arbitration. This FoF tells about two issues.
- The first issue was my "desire to defend the actions of Piotrus and Volunteer Marek" (FoF). I never met them in "real life", but I interacted with them on many pages in various subject areas. Yes, I felt they deserved some support, in part as victims of harassment by the banned user. However, the behavior by VM was clearly problematic, and I do not want to condone anything he did. It was never my intention to enable bad behavior in the project, and I am sorry for exercising a poor judgement in this case. Moreover, these guys are more than capable of defending themselves. Therefore, if the one-sided interaction ban is lifted, I would still refrain from commenting about VM and Piotrus anywhere, just in case, although a legitimate collaboration with them could be beneficial, given the overlap of our editing interests.
- The second issue was my participation in the arbitration case, "extensive, often strongly stated, not always backed by evidence" and "sometimes contradicted by policies and guidelines" (FoF). Yes, I made wrong comments in this case, and I sincerely apologize for making them. I thought that including me as a party to the case was an invitation to comment, even though there was no an obligation to comment. Unfortunately, no one said that my comments were so unhelpful during the case, prior to posting the Proposed Decision (actually, I striked through one of these comments: [1]). This had happen in part because I simply had nothing new to say on this case, being only marginally involved in the editing of pages on Jewish history. That's why I did not submit any Evidence. Who cares what I think about the research article outside of my area of expertise, Wikipedia policies (arbitrators know them better) and participants whose editing I mostly knew in other subject areas? But it was not my intention to offend anyone or make your work more difficult. I am sorry if it looked that way. I just commented, exactly as I would with my colleagues or friends, and we frequently disagree on issues. Well, that was wrong. A contentious arbitration is not a proper place for such discussions. I fully understand this now. I do admit having a negative perception of the article by G&K. Not any more. I now believe their publication was a "red flag" indicating that an effort must be made to fix the issues and improve our reputation in the expert community. I would never make such comments again.
- Contributing to the project was difficult for me with such editing restrictions because a lot of subjects I liked editing may be related to Poland during the war, broadly construed. In June 2023, I started editing page Slava Ukraini that existed in such version and did not mention Poland anywhere, hence I thought it was safe to edit. However, Marcelus inserted a WWII Poland-related content, and I made a topic ban violation by modifying his newly included content. Unfortunately, I realized this only much later, being busy in real life and forgetting about all unpleasant things here. As a result, the topic ban was expanded as "World War II in Eastern Europe and the history of Jews in Eastern Europe" to make sure that the original topic ban by Arbcom would be respected [2]. I apologize for this blunder. As of note, we had only a minor content disagreement with Marcelus who said this on AE.
- Once again, I apologize for making such comments during the arbitration and for the topic ban violation a year ago. But I did not have any problems with content editing or dispute resolution in contentious subject areas in recent years, including the area covered by the current topic ban (before the ban was issued). Hence, I am confident I can edit such subjects and interact productively with all users. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Responses
-
- @Barkeep49. Thank you very much! Unlike the topic ban, the interaction ban does not prevent me from doing anything I want in the project. I would rather avoid these users anyway. For me, removing the interaction ban is only a matter of feeling myself as an editor in good standing. This is very important for me, but I can function without it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Link by @HouseBlaster. Yes, I agree. This is an unusual case when my positive relationships with two other contributors were deemed as disruptive. I agree they were arguably disruptive as something that had led to my unhelpful comments during the arbitration. But I do not see a reason to continue keeping this interaction ban right now. And to be honest, my positive relationships with these users are strongly overstated. Admittedly, I do not like Piotrus, and for a good reason. It is another matter that I can easily collaborate with him, especially given his immense experience. VM? I like his erudition, but he is not my "buddy". Sure thing, I am not going to support them anywhere. Why would I do it? To be a glutton for punishment? My very best wishes (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Aquillion. A simple warning to me during the case would be sufficient. I was very much willing to listen what arbitrators have to say: [3] (Speaking on my comment in this diff, it appears in diff #5 of the FOF as a proof of my wrongdoing, but it was merely my honest answer to a ping by another user who asked me a legitimate question, and I happily striked through my comment after a clarification). I thought mere fact that some of them talked with me during the case was an indication that I am not doing anything seriously wrong. And it was a civil discussion, even though I admittedly assumed bad faith by the off-wiki party and good faith by VM. My very best wishes (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Pppery. Yes, indeed. Importantly, this wider topic ban on AE was imposed only to prevent any future violation of the original topic by Arbcom, nothing else [4],[5]. Therefore, if the original topic ban is lifted, there should be no reason for keeping this wider topic ban. My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- @HouseBlaster. Actually, after having this experience, I would rather not support anyone in any administrative discussions, just to be safe. My very best wishes (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comments that do not support anyone specific, such as [6], I believe would be OK. My very best wishes (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Aoidh. Yes, the iban is not hugely restrictive. I can even edit same pages as Piotrus and VM, just should not interact with them per WP:IBAN. Although I never had problems interacting with them on any article talk pages, and we rarely reverted each other's edits. The issue is my comments during administrative discussions that could be regarded as supporting these users. I fully understand this now and would never do it again, even if the iban was lifted. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you think that anything in my statements was incorrect, please tell, and I can provide additional explanations. If the motion will not pass, and I will come with same request next year, what should I do differently? My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not only I never met Piotrus and VM in "real life", but I did not interact with them off-wiki or through email during last 10+ years. I am not saying anything about EEML case, per this advice by Barkeep49. My very best wishes (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Sdrqaz. Thank you! Yes, I do not really see why this iBan would be needed. I do have an editing overlap with VM in Wikipedia:RUSUKR and some other areas. These subjects are debated at article talk pages, and VM participate there. As a practical matter, why can't I say on an article talk page that I disagree (or agree) with such and such argument by VM because [an explanation]? What harm that would be? My very best wishes (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Motion 3. Yes, I do ask to remove the wider topic ban issued on WP:AE, please. Otherwise, this does not make any sense. I thought it was clear from my statement. My very best wishes (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell. Thank you very much! Would you also consider supporting motion 3? That wider topic ban was introduced specifically to ensure that the original topic ban by Arbcom would not be violated. Hence, it is not logical keeping it if the original ban will be lifted. My very best wishes (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Volunteer Marek
Statement by Piotrus
Statement by Aquillion
The topic ban always struck me as one that shouldn't have happened. There simply wasn't anything in evidence that MVBW had problems in the topic area; and topic-bans are meant to be preventative, not punitive. I can understand why it happened (ArbCom needs to maintain decorum during cases and has a limited toolbox to enforce that) but if they felt something was necessary, just the interaction ban, ejecting MVBW from that specific case during the case, or at most restrictions on participation in future ArbCom cases where MVBW isn't a party would have made more sense, since those were the actual issues it was supposed to resolve. Beyond this specific instance, I feel that ArbCom might want to consider how they'll enforce decorum in cases in the future and what sort of sanctions someone can / ought to get for issues that are solely confined to the case pages itself like this - partially it feels like the topic ban happened because there wasn't a clear precedent of what to do, so they just tossed MVBW into the bin of the same sanctions they were leveling at everyone else even if it didn't make sense. Possibly more willingness to eject unhelpful third parties from specific cases while the case is in progress could be helpful. --Aquillion (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Pppery
Note that My very best wishes is also subject to an overlapping AE topic ban (WP:AELOG/2023#Eastern Europe: My very best wishes is topic-banned from the areas of World War II in Eastern Europe and the history of Jews in Eastern Europe, and is warned that further disruption may lead to a topic ban from the whole Eastern Europe topic area, without further warning. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she
) * Pppery * it has begun... 15:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Tamzin
Acknowledging courtesy ping. To nitpick procedurally, the TBAN I enacted was an AE-consensus sanction, not an individual one. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive319 § My very best wishes. Courtesy pings to @ScottishFinnishRadish, Courcelles, Valereee, Seraphimblade, and Guerillero, who participated in the admin discussion there. I personally have no opinion on whether to lift the sanction. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by HouseBlaster
I remain of the opinion that MVBW should not be under an iban. Would someone kindly be able to explain to me what preventative purpose it is serving? Any "don't do this again" message (both to MVBW and people in the future who might consider disruptively defending someone at ArbCom) has surely been received at this point, so I don't see it remaining serving as a further deterrent. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 23:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by The Four Deuces
My very best wishes' has minimized his history with Piotrus and Volunter Marek.
My very best wishes (then known as User:Biophys) cooperated off wiki with Piotrus and Volunteer Marek (then known as User:radeksz) in order to influence articles' contents and to get opposing editors sanctioned. Details are available at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list. The case resulted in Eastern Europe's listing as a contentious topic for Arbitration enforcement.
TFD (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Elinruby, I did not say that MVBW's involvement in the Eastern European Mailing List (EEML) should affect the current application. I said that MVBW "has minimized his history with Piotrus and Volunter Marek." He wrote above, "I never met them in "real life", but I interacted with them on many pages in various subject areas." No one asked him to bring up his previous relationship, but if he does, it should be the whole truth. TFD (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Elinruby, there is no reason I should disclose my interactions with you since it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.
MYBW wrote, "I never met them in "real life", but I interacted with them on many pages in various subject areas." Do you think that is a fair and accurate reflection of their previous interactions?
My advice to you and to myself is to let the administrators decide what signficance if any it has.
TFD (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Elinruby
I want to say that MVBW is an invaluable contributor, particularly when it comes to Russia and Russians. I deeply regretted losing contact with him because of the topic ban, given that I was still trying to straighten out the pages about collaboration with Nazi Germany and was talking to Polish editors about that.
I was a party to the Holocaust in Poland Arbcom case. as best I can tell for much the same reasons as MVBW; we were editing in the topic area of the war in Ukraine at the same time as VM and Gitz6666. I protested the topic ban at the time. MVBW is interested in the war in Ukraine, and not Poland. However the history of the region is such that part of Ukraine was once part of Poland (to vastly oversimplify) and I completely understand both that it would be difficult to respect a topic ban and that it would be necessary to break ties with me because of it.
If it is relevant to anyone's thinking I strongly support removing this topic ban. I do not think the interaction ban is necessary either; he seems pretty serious about addressing the Committee's concerns. Elinruby (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces: is bringing up the truly ancient past. As someone who is on friendly terms with all three editors and frequently was in discussions about the Ukraine war where MVBW and VM were reasoning witH editors who thought the Russians could do no wrong, I can assure you that Piotrus was in entirely different topic areas at the time, and told me he lost contact with MVBW after the email list case. It is true that MVBW often agreed with VM on Ukraine, but then so did I. VM did his homework on Ukraine and every time I checked him, he was completely correct. I will also add that when I went back to the war on Ukraine article after the HiP case I found more than one source misrepresentation in the limited area of casualty numbers that I was trying to update, and vast resistance to edits to the "stable version". So I regret to say that in my informed opinion the sanctions were not only unnecessary but harmed the encyclopedia. Elinruby (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces: this is someone else's appeal so I am going to give that rather specious argument the silence it deserves. I'll just note you are not disclosing your interactions with me either, for that matter. I am not saying you should have; sometimes ancient is just ancient, is all, and that is true in both cases. Elinruby (talk) 22:49, 6 July 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.
World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- Created from [7] on request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Recuse (I expressed my opinion on the iban on the PD talk page). HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 18:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Arbitrator views and discussion
- Recuse I was involved with one of the articles in this case. Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I had mixed feelings about the topic ban which is why I didn't end up voting for it. I am open to repealing the topic ban, but not the interaction ban as a first step. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @Pppery for that. I'll note that it seems to have been placed as an individual administrator action by Tamzin and as it is a year old (as of today) I'd support repealing that as part of the motion given the broad overlap, but will wait for further feedback before doing so, though admittedly the justification for the topic ban being necessary a year ago is strengthened by that action). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- I am not immediately opposed to this request; there was cause at the time to implement these remedies but it was by no means a central part of the original case. Primefac (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Noting proposal of AE topic ban repeal below. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Motion: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland
Remedy 5.1 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic ban on My very best wishes) is repealed. Remedy 5.2 (the 1-way interaction ban) remains in effect.
For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 2 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.
- Support
- As explained above I thought our factual basis for the topic ban was weaker than for the i-ban. I ultimately didn't vote for or against it because I decided a firmer outcome to the case was better than a milder one but this particular case I wasn't sure it was ever necessary. I think a year on and given the assurances here by MVBW that we can revoke it, also knowing that should it ever be a problem again that an individual admin or AE could swiftly reimpose it. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- This seems to be a reasonable request especially when it can be reimposed as necessary if it becomes an issue. Also support repealing the AE sanction, though if there is objection from editors on that point I'd be open to reconsidering that point. - Aoidh (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- I am not sure the iban needs to stay in place, but otherwise I am not finding great issue with this motion. Primefac (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am making this my second choice to a motion (below) to repeal both bans. Primefac (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Second choice. I'm not convinced that the interaction ban is necessary either, but this is better than nothing. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm happy to extend MVBW some rope. Ultimately, the best result all round from a topic ban is that the topic-banned editor spends some time contributing constructively elsewhere and then comes back after the requisite period and is once again an asset. The second best is that the topic ban keeps an otherwise productive editor away from an area where they can't see their own bias but I don't think MVBW is that sort of editor. They have made positive contributions elsewhere instead of just sitting out the ban or testing its limits and their appeal shows a level of self-awareness that hopefully means they won't make the same mistakes if given a second chance. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Abstain
- ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Given the history and leadup to the case, I am very very wary of repealing the majority of remedies from it; in particular given how past granted appeals/repeals of remedies contributed to escalations and further conflict. However, this was a very harsh sanction and MV's appeal is not bad. I still cannot support the appeal but I will not oppose. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Arbitrator discussion
- I think this is something I'd support, but I'd like to give editors more time to comment before doing so. - Aoidh (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- I had time to look over the history of the case through the lens of this amendment request, and this request has been open a week which I think is a sufficient amount of time. - Aoidh (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- If anything I would rather it be the other way around; the recent AE topic ban would appear to overlap with this one, but the interaction ban does not appear to be a problem any more. Primefac (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- The AE topic ban was a year ago and happened only a couple weeks after the case closed so I don't think it outrageous to be appealed (and rescinded) now else we should have made the minimum time to wait longer. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I appear to have misread the timestamps. Primefac (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- The AE topic ban was a year ago and happened only a couple weeks after the case closed so I don't think it outrageous to be appealed (and rescinded) now else we should have made the minimum time to wait longer. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Noting addition of links and changing commas to parentheses for easier parsing. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Motion 2: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland
Remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) are repealed.
For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.
- Support
- First choice. Primefac (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- First choice. I am not convinced that the interaction ban serves any preventative effect; I think that based on this appeal and the unusual nature of the interaction ban (effectively for serving as a "fan club"), its usefulness has worn out and My very best wishes understands what went wrong. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Per my comments above. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- This would be a mistake. The Iban can be looked at in the future but I am skeptical of appealing it at this time. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Given the history that led to its implementation, nothing in the request is compelling enough to warrant removal of the interaction ban, which does not appear to be unduly restrictive. - Aoidh (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Abstain
- Arbitrator discussion
- Noting addition of links and changing commas to parentheses for easier parsing. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Motion 3: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland
My very best wishes' topic ban from World War II in Eastern Europe and the history of Jews in Eastern Europe, imposed under the Eastern Europe contentious topic procedures, is repealed.
For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.
- Support
- Given that a repeal of the narrower Polish topic ban is on the cards, it seems pointless to me to repeal that and have a broader topic ban (which covers the Polish topic ban) in place, sending My very best wishes back to square one. I am generally in favour of the Committee not interfering in Community affairs, but given that the topic ban was carried out as arbitration enforcement, it is well within our remit to repeal as well. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- If I had understood it to be an AE consensus rather than individual sanction I'd have incorporated it until my original motion (as an individual it could have just been "undone" as a normal undoing). Barkeep49 (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Per my comment in the first motion. - Aoidh (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose
- If one would like a restriction lifted, one should ask --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Abstain
- Arbitrator discussion
- Please note that this is meant to be in addition to the two prior motions. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment. |
Historical elections
Motion: Historical elections
Following a request for action based on evidence of alleged harassment and canvassing, the Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the topic area of historical elections. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:
- The case title will be Historical elections.
- The initial parties will be:
- Anonymousioss (talk · contribs)
- BigCapt45 (talk · contribs)
- CroatiaElects (talk · contribs)
- DemocraticLuntz (talk · contribs)
- Mcleanm302 (talk · contribs)
- Number 57 (talk · contribs)
- Talleyrand6 (talk · contribs)
- VosleCap (talk · contribs)
- Guerillero will be the initial drafter
- The case will progress at the usual time table, unless additional parties are added in which case the drafters may choose to extend the timeline.
- All case page are to be semi-protected.
- Private evidence will be accepted. Any case submissions involving non-public information, including off-site accounts, should be directed to the Arbitration Committee by email to Arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Any links to the English Wikipedia submitted as part of private evidence will be aggregated and posted on the evidence page. Any private evidence that is used to support a proposal (a finding of fact or remedy) or is otherwise deemed relevant to the case will be provided to affected parties when possible (evidence of off-wiki harassment may not be shared). Affected parties will be given an opportunity to respond.
For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Arbitrator views and discussions
Proposing --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've boldly changed the proposed case to "Historical elections", which solves the problem that we already have a case by basically that name, and also clarified that the scope is focused on completed elections, going quite far back in history, and not super focused on current elections. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- And now, for a comment on the merits. This case is what another Arb intelligently described as "hybrid." There's not so much private information that we can't hear it in public. But there is so much private information that we can't hear it as fully public as we usually would. This case rather much reminds me of the WPTC case. For the moment, we're obviously being a bit coy about what the private parts are; but I do hope that we can lay them out a little more completely at some point. As for the on-wiki parts, that's where the public part of the case comes in. We're looking for indications of broader issues in the realm of articles on historical elections, including the on-wiki/off-wiki interface. If you're an editor in the election articles area, your thoughts, commentary, and feedback are welcome. If you have been named as a party, we want to hear that as well, but beware that you've probably been listed because you have been involved in a dispute in the elections area or are suspected of off-wiki misbehavior. As for the peanut gallery (i.e. you haven't edited in the historical election articles area but would still like to chime in), if you have comments about how the WPTC case did or didn't work well, or other suggestions for hybrid cases, this would be a good time to mention that so we can take those lessons to heart before we do another hybrid case. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- The more I sat with my above message, I feel like it didn't quite do justice for describing the process, since this isn't how we usually do things. If you've been named as a party, I imagine that feels pretty scary. And I won't lie: yes, this could have repercussions to your editing career. At the end of the day, we ask for your honesty and cooperation. I would treat this as we usually would a case request at WP:ARC. We're not deciding the merits of the case here; we're just deciding if we need to take the case and do the whole nine yards of collecting evidence, workshopping, and proposing a decision. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Anonymousioss
Statement by BigCapt45
Statement by CroatiaElects
Statement by DemocraticLuntz
Consensus was clearly achieved in favor of not removing elements of county pages (presidential election results) that had been there for decades and are clearly a key aspect of understanding a county. I'm not sure what this is about other than someone having sour grapes that the universe of users who care deeply about this aspect of county pages and believe it’s a critical aspect (even if prose might be preferable). DemocraticLuntz (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Mcleanm302
Statement by Number 57
Statement by Talleyrand6
Statement by VosleCap
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this motion as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should open the proposed case or provide additional information.
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}}.
|
Trilletrollet
Trilletrollet is issued a logged warning to observe the requirements of civility and avoiding personal attacks especially strictly in contentious areas, and that further failure to do so is likely to result in sanction. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Trilletrollet
Trilletrollet does not view their behaviour as incivil. After BilledMammal brought this up on Trilletrollet's talk page, Trilletrollet's response was A formal warning from an uninvolved admin would make it clear to Trilletrollet that comments like these are unacceptable, and make it easier to take action in the future if this becomes a larger problem. Since Trilletrollet acknowledges a wish to avoid the Israel-Palestine conflict area but is unable to do that on their own [10], a voluntary topic-ban may help as well.
Discussion concerning TrilletrolletStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Trilletrollet
Statement by Iskandar323There isn't a clear civility issue in the diffs provided, which both outline general statements not directed at any editor or anyone in particular other than broad institutions. The first is directed at the Telegraph, which for sure is a race-baiting rag that well merits all sorts of colourful language being thrown at it, even if throwing colourful language at it on Wikipedia is somewhat needless. The second is directed at Israel through reference to what is now a very widespread meme. Neither really amounts to any form of directed incivility: if others take offense by proxy then it is more of an eye-of-the-beholder-type situation. The "s" word is generally best avoided, as with any other expletives, but beyond this, I'm not sure what there actually is to sanction here. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Sean.hoylandGiven that Trilletrollet said 'Ok, I'm terribly, terribly sorry about my actions.', information that was not included in the AE report, it seems likely that their views are more complicated than not viewing their behaviour as "incivil". I would argue that thinking some people are shitheads who support genocide is not a good reason to avoid the PIA topic area. It shouldn't matter if the editor can follow the policies and guidelines. On the other hand, thinking there is a legitimate reason (in Wikipedia's terms) to say things like that to specific people, a 'reason to be "incivil"' to editors, is probably a good reason to avoid the PIA topic area. I would encourage Trilletrollet to try to stick around in the topic area if they think they can cope with the content and behavioral constraints and the occasional intrusive thoughts because of their personal views. For me, question #1 for access to the topic area should be, is this editor using deception i.e. are they a sock? Honesty is probably grossly undervalued in the topic area given that it is an essential requirement for building an encyclopedia. And every time we lose an honest person, regardless of what we think of their personal views, we increase the proportion of dishonest editors who use deception via sockpuppetry. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Regarding the diff #2 cited by BilledMammal as a civility issue.
Some interesting context. What truly motivated the editor who requested the move is unknown. What is known is that they were subsequently topic banned as part of the ArbCom canvassing case - "Based on information from the checkuser tool and on information received, the Committee determines that Homerethegreat most likely participated in discussions due to canvassing and made proxy edits for a banned editor." (canvassing that is evidently ongoing). So, another way of describing the statement could be that it was unnecessarily speculative. I wonder if the statement would appear different if Trilletrollet had made exactly the same comment after the ArbCom case and topic ban rather than before. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by BilledMammalFYI, they have declared awareness of ARBPIA prior to this month, such as on 21 October 2023. Iskandar323, if someone made a comment mocking the way Indians speak, we would probably interpret it as a personal attack against Indian editors, and might even ban them for racism. Why would mocking the way Israeli's speak be treated any differently? Regarding the first diff that Chess provided, this comment by Trilletrollet seems to make it clear they are referring to editors participating in the RfC, not to the Telegraph. Red-tailed hawk, although I would agree that they suggest there is an issue beyond civility, I actually rose those primarily as civility issues. By saying that it is "Hasbara" or "Zionist propaganda" to refer to the Gaza Health Ministry as "Hamas-run" or similar, despite the designation being common in reliable sources and endorsed in multiple RfCs, is to suggest that editors who have added that designation or supported it in RfCs are Hasbara or pushing "Zionist propaganda". Civility issues are also quite common for them. Examples in addition to the ones provided by Chess include:
Note that while some of these diffs are old, they are very recent in terms of the number of edits. For example, 13 April is their 100th most recent edit to talk space, and 16 November is their 54th most recent edit to project space. BilledMammal (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by DtobiasLooking at this user's contributions, I see they are mostly regarding adjusting categories of prehistoric animals. This is, I presume, tedious but useful work at making the encyclopedia better in that area, so good for you. However, whenever the subject matter turns to something more contentious such as Israel/Palestine or gender, things get rougher, and this user starts arrogantly proclaiming "the right side of history" and using playground-bully style namecalling. Perhaps this user would be better off sticking to prehistoric animals. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by Aaron LiuPlease, let's all chill down here. TT (sorry bud I dunno what short name to call you) crossed a line here, yes. But this was a single incident that she didn't back down for a bit about that she has since apologized for. Otherwise, I see incredibly and invariably sporadic incidences cited here, with only two incidences (incl. the aforementioned) picking up in the past weeks, the evidence seemingly compiled overall for civility instead of a single topic notwithstanding. As argued in WP:PUNITIVE, sanctions should be preventative and not punitive. The editor has expressed willingness to disengage, so I believe at most, a big warning would be enough. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Trilletrollet
|
Sorabino
The article Duchy of Saint Sava is placed indefinitely under a "consensus required" restriction as follows: Prior to taking any of the actions of moving, merging and redirecting, or blanking and redirecting the article, consensus must be established for such an action. That consensus may be established by any normal process, including request for comment and requested move. If there is any dispute over whether such a discussion establishes consensus, formal closure of the discussion by an uninvolved editor must be sought. Edits or moves covered by this restriction made without establishing such a consensus may result in sanction, and may be reverted by any editor. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Sorabino
I am an involved administrator here so I can't formally warn or otherwise sanction this user myself, so I'm requesting help from others. This user has been furthering a content dispute at this article for many years now, on a question of how much due weight should be given to describing a medieval title and in turn a polity. This relatively minor historiographical issue has clearly been escalated into a modern-day political talking point, as a separate article gives some sort of prominence to the Serb nature of the place at the time. Multiple other editors have gone through multiple rounds of explaining that the justification for having a standalone article is insufficient, and it's not commensurate to what the consensus of reliable sources say about it. This last flared up in 2021 at Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 2, and it flared up again this year. We should stop endlessly tolerating this kind of This isn't as severe as the case of Antidiskriminator, but it's close.
Discussion concerning SorabinoStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SorabinoThank you for the notification. For now, I will abstain from commenting, since my accuser is yet to provide particular edits or some other evidence that would demonstrate my allegedly inappropriate behavior. Sorabino (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Several factual errors and misrepresentations have been posted here by my accuser. Starting from the top, he claims that I have been The claim of my accuser that in 2024 debates I repeated some sources ( Since responses of my accuser already exceed 1000 words, please would you allow me just another post here? Several users have raised questions related to citing and sources, but 500 word limitations are preventing me from answering. If allowed, that would also be my final post here (just by re-posting my attempted post). Sorabino (talk) 08:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by ThebiguglyalienI have a procedural concern as an uninvolved observer. If this is going to be challenged on insufficient evidence, then it would help if there's a clarification on what standard of evidence is expected. Would several diffs showing editing that favors one side be enough to justify a sanction on its own, or would these diffs need to demonstrate something beyond simply favoring a POV? And in turn, what would be expected of the accused in their defense if these diffs are produced? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by Amanuensis BalkanicusI was notified to this dispute because I have the page in question on my watchlist. Santasa99 is being disruptive here, not Sorabino, and I'm puzzled how anyone can come to a different conclusion. Back in April, Santasa and Joy agreed between the two of them to merge the Duchy of Saint Sava article to Herzegovina#Medieval period without inviting the wider community to discuss what was (as I think is now very clear) a highly contentious move. [23] [24] [25] Perhaps, instead of unilaterally deciding to merge the article, had Santasa or Joy initiated an RfC then about its future, an editor like myself may have chimed in and provided them the reliable secondary sources for which they were asking which attest to the Duchy's existence, notability and naming as such. Instead, it has come to this. Santasa's effective destruction of the Duchy article back in April, and their attempts to get over half-a-dozen redirects deleted (!) for completely spurious reasons are themselves extremely tendentious. The peddling of outright falsehoods is also deeply unsettling. Take, for example, the claim that "These redirect titles are misnomers; it does not exist in scholarship on the subject in this form." [26] This is completely untrue, as I demonstrated in my comment at the ongoing redirect discussion by providing eight academic sources (one published as recently as last year) which do discuss the Duchy and verify the historicity of its existence. [27] In contrast to the picture painted by Joy of a user prone to tendentious editing, Sorabino reacted to Santasa and Joy's recent actions by starting a discussion on the TP. [28] Thus, Sorabino is effectively being reported for holding a discussion and in that discussion expressing views that Joy does not agree with (in a content dispute Joy is involved in). Joy, expressing views about an article's title that differ from your own is not an ARBMAC violation, and continuing to hold those views for many years does not constitute a "pattern of disruptive behavior". Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by Santasa99Following could be a crucial point, these two (three) moments in 4 years long discussion:
I have following questions for User:Levivich, now that they shifted the blame on Joy and me:
You, of course, can't answer why Sorabino never answered on these kind of questions, asked countless times over the years, by Joy, Mikola, Mhare, Tezwoo, Surticna, DeCausa, and myself, but you dug through those discussions in Archives, and you should have noticed how Sorabino never produced an answer to a specific inquiry and concrete question. And let's not forget, you also can't make edits and rv's based on your opinion that "duchy is a polity ruled by duke", because sometimes it is and sometimes it is not, let alone that "Duke Levivich" means "Duchy of Levivich" exists.--౪ Santa ౪99° 02:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by LevivichI got curious after reading this and started digging, which led to me to reverse the bold redirection of the article and vote at the related RFD. Here's a summary of the history as I understand it:
I don't know enough about the Balkans to understand the POV implications of having an article about a Bosnian's Duchy named after a Serbian saint (except by process of elimination, I assume Croatia might object), but I would be shocked--shocked!--to learn that one or more editors' motivations was nationalist POV pushing. I am even more shocked that nobody at any point apparently opened up a proper WP:MERGE discussion or started an WP:AFD and voted "redirect." Joy is an admin with an account that's 22 years old; Santasa99 has an account that is 16 years old; Sorabino's account is 8 years old. The claims on the talk page, RFD page, and here, that either the "Duchy of Saint Sava" did not exist, does not appear in RSes, or that Sorabino has not posted RSes, are patently false as evidenced by the talk page archives and the sources discussed therein (by Sorabino and others, including Vego 1982 but also several from the 21st century). Joy's and Santasa's posts at this AE do not accurately convey the relevant facts. This looks like WP:GAMING and "weaponizing AE," and these editors should know how to properly resolve this content dispute vs. improperly. Joy's and Santasa's actions here were improper, and should be addressed. Sorry this is over 500 words; I don't plan to add anything unless there are questions. Levivich (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by DeCausaI was pinged by Levivich - which is the only reason why I'm posting. It seems to be about why I removed some IP posts based on socking. The article and talk page has been plagued by socking, particularly by banned user Great Khaan. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Great Khaan/Archive. They have a very distinctive style and regularly posted on the page: WP:DUCK for the IP. I also noticed Levivich asking who "Surticna" is. This is Surtsicna a well known editor in multiple history topics. Although I've no interest in getting involved in this, since I'm posting here i'll make one comment. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Levivich has got completely the wrong end of the stick. I got "accidentally" involved in this in 2021. I don't know how exactly the underlying nationalist POVs play out in this. What I do know is that Sorobino (plus assorted Great Khaan socks) have pushed to maintain this article for many years with no other support. If you read the article it's apparent that there is very little in it about a "Duchy of St Sava". It was a title that may or may not (but probably was) used by a Grand Duke of Bosnia for a little over a decade or so. That's why the article is mainly about that individual. The sources that Sorabino claim (which I looked at in 2021) are just passing references (as you would expect from an adjunct title). So this has been gone over and over multiple times in the talk pages. I've lost track of the number of times I've said to Sorabino: produce a draft article from these sources that gives a substantive account of the history of a "Duch of st Sava". He's failed to do that every time. I conclude because it's not possible. FWIW, i think Sorabino's contribution has been WP:TENDENTIOUS and both Sorabino and Santasa have an inability to avoid WALLOFTEXT and won't drop the stick. If they are both PBLOCK'ed from the article and talk page it would be a net positive. (347 words) DeCausa (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Result concerning Sorabino
|
Salfanto
Salfanto blocked indef (diff) as a regular admin action (no AE enhancements). El_C 12:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Salfanto
Salfanto appears to have chronic issues with the WP:VERIFY, WP:DUE and WP:SYNTH policies. Aside from the above cited diffs, their edits on Human wave attack where they persistently inserted content about Ukraine using human wave attacks using Russian state media sources and synthesis of other references (such as in this diff) showcase their disregard to policy in favour to I suppose WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS about them percieving that content about Russia is not ″neutral″. The eagerness to continue using poor sources like social media to claim the deaths of individuals even after receiving a block is not only disturbing but to me indicates that this editor should not be editing in this topic, if at all about living people in general.
Discussion concerning SalfantoStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Salfanto
Statement by JDialaIt is indisputable that Salfanto's sourcing does not meet our standards. It should be noted however that Salfanto is a rather new editor, with the overwhelming majority of his edits having taken place in the last eight months. Salfanto's conduct strikes me as trout-worthy and a learning experience for him, and a glance at his edit history indicates that notwithstanding some mistakes he is here to build an encyclopedia. The topic area suffers from more serious issues like persistent low-level POV pushing. I think there's a structural problem in that low-level POV pushing by established editors is far harder to identify and prosecute than comparatively minor mistakes by inexperienced editors like ocassional 1RR or RS violations. The former is ultimately more pernicious to the project. JDiala (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by ManyAreasExpertI'm still waiting for the editor to explain their edits here Talk:Bogdan Khmelnitsky Battalion#Assessed by the ISW . Another edit, where they add ambiguous This claim was assessed by Institute for the Study of War on 7 November 2023 , is [29] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by SaintPaulOfTarsusThe user has continued to make misleading and dubiously-sourced edits within the topic area in just the past few hours, asserting here that several foreign fighters killed in action were the commanders of units supposedly called the "1st Rifle Platoon", "2nd Rifle Platoon", and "3rd Recon Platoon", despite no such term existing in the cited articles. I can only conclude that these alleged military unit names are either completely fabricated by Salfanto or perhaps drawn from some "phantom" source the user for whatever reason chose not to reference; the association of the deceased individuals with the alleged military units remains unexplained in either scenario. In the same edit the user asserts that Ukraine's 22nd Brigade was a "belligerent" in the 2023 counteroffensive citing an article that claimed the brigade was, at the time of publication, Result concerning Salfanto
|
Aredoros87
Aredoros87 indefinitely topic banned from AA2. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Aredoros87
Despite still having an indefinite restriction requiring to obtain consensus to readd any content that has been reverted in AA or related conflict articles, Aredoros87 has violated it. In addition, they've been POV pushing and removing sourced content. Vanezi (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Aredoros87Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Aredoros87
Statement by (username)Result concerning Aredoros87
|
Nishidani
A bunch of socks/compromised accounts blocked. Further action related to anything here will need a separate report. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Nishidani
Discussion concerning NishidaniStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by NishidaniRed-tailed hawk. 12 editors were in favour of the contested word (User:Unbandito, User:Dan Murphy,User:Iskandar323,User:Selfstudier,User:Zero0000, User:Nableezy, User:IOHANNVSVERVS,User:Makeandtoss, User:DMH223344, User:Skitash, User:Nishidani,User:Levivich). Their collective editing over decades consists of 357,426 contributions to Wikipedia. The 7 editors (User:Oleg Yunakov,User: מתיאל, User:Galamore, User:O.maximov, User:ABHammad, Kentucky Rain2, User:Icebear244) who contest the word have a total of 8,569 edits collectively to their account, three or more registered within the last several months. My remark reflects this awareness. According to the plaintiff, the consensus was formed by the last named 7, while the majority of 12 was against that consensus- This reminds me that while the Mensheviks actually constituted the majority in many debates, the minority called themselves the majority (Bolsheviks) and labelled the real majority a minority (Mensheviks) Nishidani (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
By the way BilledMammal, you claimed I suggested that editors of the article Calls for the destruction of Israel are "the hasbara bandwagon”. That’s nicely framed. In that diff I said no such thing. It only shows me arguing that repeating the meme in question (Hamas uses human shields) suggested to me that some ‘experienced editors’ are unfamiliar with core policy’ and the scholarship on that meme's use. My dry summary of the historical overview elicited the response that I ‘clearly sympathize more with Hamas' POV’ and was disruptively ‘personalizing the dispute’, being ‘uncivil’. Well, goodness me. ‘the Hamas POV‘ attributed to me did call for the destruction of Israel. So in context my interlocutor was intimating bizarrely that I share the view Israel should be destroyed, an egregious WP:AGF violation. I don't report such trivia, nor do I keep that kind of remark on some silly file detailing injurious, ‘uncivil’ insinuations thrown my way for some future AE retaliation. Nishidani (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by SelfstudierI call WP:BOOMERANG for this WP:POINTy waste of editorial time over a content dispute where the current consensus is roughly 2:1 against. Editor appeared out of the blue to make This edit with edit summary "The next to restore this disputed version, against consensus and every possible wiki policy, will be reported for edit warring and disruptive editing." and about which I was moved to comment directly their talk page and was duly ignored. This is an ill motivated request about which it is quite difficult to AGF.Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by NableezyThere is a clear consensus on the talk page for this edit, a talk page the filer is notably absent from. In what world is an editor completely unengaged on the talk page making as their very first edit to an article a revert and claiming that anybody who reverts them is being disruptive? That’s absurd, and if Icebear244 feels that the material should not be in the article they should feel welcome to make that argument on the talk page, not make a revert with an edit summary claiming the power to enforce the removal of what has consensus, a consensus they have not participated in working on or overcoming at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by nableezy (talk • contribs) 17:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC) Regarding the comment by Thebiguglyalien, this isn’t the first time an editor has mistaken their own views for those of the community, but at a certain point the repeated claims of disruptive editing against others users without evidence constitutes casting aspersions and should be dealt with appropriately. nableezy - 02:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Sean.hoylandI would be interested to know the background to Icebear244's involvement and decisions. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC) re: The Kip's "I sincerely do think mass topic bans would ultimately result in improvement to ARBPIA content". In my view, this is a faith-based belief rather than an evidence-based belief. I think there is a good chance that it would not ultimately result in improvement to ARBPIA content, nor do I think there is any basis to believe that it would. The PIA 'landscape' would likely be rapidly recolonized by the wiki-editor equivalent of pioneer species. A critical factor is that Wikipedia's remedies/sanctions etc. are only effective on honest individuals. Individuals who employ deception are not impacted by topic bans, blocks etc. They can regenerate themselves and live many wiki-lives. The history of the article in question, Zionism, is a good example of the important role editor-reincarnation plays in PIA. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC) So, one checkuser block so far. Several of the editors involved in the edit warring at Zionism resemble other editors, for example, ABHammad resembles Dajudem/Tundrabuggy/Stellarkid/Snakeswithfeet - sorry ABHammad, it's just what the math suggests. Perhaps many issues could be avoided if participation in edit warring was enough to trigger a checkuser, or checkuser was used much more routinely. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC) @BilledMammal:, whether saying A resembles B is regarded as an aspersion by anyone (other than the person I said it about) is a question that does not interest me. There is no utility for me in civility concerns, it's just an irrelevant distraction. From my perspective it is an objective statement of fact about the relationship between objects in a metric space. There is no value judgement, and it doesn't necessarily mean that they are the same person. There are at least 3 ways to address these things. ABHammad could make a true statement of fact. A checkuser could simply have a look. An SPI could be filed. A problem, of course, is that 'computer says so' is currently not a valid reason to request a checkuser. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC) Regarding recolonization of the PIA topic area after a potential Arbcom case clean out, you can ask the question - how long would recolonization take? This 'ARBPIA gaming?' thread at AN provides an answer. With a little bit of preparation, it could take as little as two and half days. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC) To preserve the record here, User:Kentucky Rain24, another editor employing deception, who also happened to be involved in the edit warring events at Zionism used to generate this report, has now been blocked. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC) I agree with @Iskandar323: that a rational and pragmatic response would be to conduct checkusers, especially if an Arbcom case or a separate AE case are options. Including what turns out to be a disposable account in a case presumably wastes everyone's time given that disposable accounts have no standing, and remedies have no impact on them. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by 916crdshn
Statement by BilledMammalNishidani does appear to have a habit of personalizing comments. A few that I remembered, or found by quickly glancing through some of their more active talk pages, includes "Don't reply. Read several good books on the facts of history", saying a user "lack even an elementary understanding" of how to closely parse texts, describing a talk page discussion as an A few other examples are:
Statement by IOHANNVSVERVSHere is the most recent and ongoing discussion regarding this content dispute [64], and note that this was also discussed recently in this discussion here [65]. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Vegan416Although my name was dragged into this discussion here, I wish to stress that I don't want to have any part in this fight and I oppose this Arbitration Request against Nishidani, at least as it concerns my own encounters with Nishidani. I can deal with Nishidani on my own, both on the content level and the personal level, and I don't need external protection. Of course, I cannot speak for others on this regard. I also oppose Nishidani's opinion on the contested term in its current place, but the way to win this debate is to write a strong policy-based argument based on many reliable sources. Which is what I am doing now, and will be ready next week. Vegan416 (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by Dan MurphyThe complaining cohort is wrong on the underlying content, and wrong on whose behavior is a problem here. This Icebear account has under 2,000 edits to Wikipedia, fewer than 80 since 2020, one edit ever to the Zionism article (the edit today), and zero to that article's talk page. Thanks to today's flurry of activity, over 13% of Icebear's activity since 2020 has been trying to supervote an ahistorical "consensus" into the Zionism article and/or getting Nishidani banned. This bit of chutzpah (Icebear's edit summary) salivating over the arb enforcement wars to come, should guarantee blowback on that account: "The next to restore this disputed version, against consensus and every possible wiki policy, will be reported for edit warring and disruptive editing." Must have just stumbled across all this. Oh, the BilledMammal account is here. How surprising.Dan Murphy (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by UnbanditoThe content restored by Nishidani was the latest version in an ongoing content dispute over the inclusion of a mention of colonization/colonialism in the article lead. A mention of colonialism is broadly supported by the relevant scholarship, as a number of editors have demonstrated in the relevant talk page discussions. To broadly summarize the dispute, a slight majority of editors support the inclusion of a mention of colonialism in the lead while a minority oppose any mention of it. In my reading of the edit history of the dispute, the editors in favor of an inclusion of colonialism have advanced several versions of the proposed content, compromising when their edits were reverted and supporting their edits on the talk page, while editors opposed to the new changes have reverted all attempts to add language and sourcing which mentions colonialism, with little support for these actions on the talk page. This dispute began when Iskandar's edit was reverted on 6 June. As the dispute continued, several revised additions were also reverted. Editors opposed to the inclusion of a mention of colonialism have made their own changes to the lead, so the claim that one "side" is adding disputed material and the other is not doesn't stand up to scrutiny. When the most recent version of the proposed changes was reverted, Nishidani added several high quality sources. Those edits were reverted regardless of the substantive changes in sourcing, and Icebear issued a blanket threat to report anyone who restored the contested content. At the time of Nishidani's edit, I was working on this compromise, but I was edit conflicted and decided to return to the article later. If I had finished my edit more quickly, it seems that I would have been dragged in front of this noticeboard even though my edit is substantially different since, according to Icebear's edit summary, anyone restoring the disputed version would be reported. The simple truth of this content dispute is that a number of editors, who are in the minority, are being very inflexible about any mention of colonialism in the lead despite strong support in the literature and among editors for these changes. In my opinion the lead is improving, however chaotically and contentiously. There's no need for administrative involvement here. Nishidani has been recognized many times over the years for their work defending scholarship and scholarly sources on Wikipedia. They are doing more of that good work on the Zionism page. Unbandito (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by ParabolistOne of the most suspect lead ups to an AE filing I've ever seen. And BilledMammal's "Here's eight specific diffs with commentary stretching all the way back to November I just, you know, causally glanced at in the hour and a half since this filing was posted" is ridiculous. How many times can one editor be warned about weaponizing AE against their opponents before someone actually recognizes the pattern? This is becoming farcical. Parabolist (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by ThebiguglyalienMy thoughts in no order:
To the administrators, I ask two questions that I'd like to have answered as part of the decision here. First, what are the red lines? If it's disruption, we're well past that. If it's the community getting sick of it, we're well past that. I don't know what further lines can be crossed. Second, how often is a fear of blowback from a banned user and their wikifriends a factor in these decisions? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by The KipJust jumping in here to effectively second everything TBUA said above. The AE filer themselves is suspect in their editing, and there’s a good argument for a BOOMERANG punishment here; that said, that doesn’t absolve Nishidani of valid incivility complaints and other issues regarding ARBPIA that’ve gone on for years. Sanctions for both would be ideal. This whole case and its votes are, in my opinion, emblematic of the shortcomings of the ARBPIA area and its editors, who consistently defend/attack others at this board and other places on Wikipedia almost solely based on ideological alignment. I sincerely do think mass topic bans would ultimately result in improvement to ARBPIA content; this attitude towards experienced editors of “well, they contribute a lot despite their [ WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct/POV-pushing/weaponizing of AE/etc] can’t be the long-term solution. Anyhow, that’s the end of my soapbox. The Kip (contribs) 04:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Levivich (Nishidani)Nishidani mentioned 7 editors who opposed describing Zionism as colonialism. I recognize those names (and others). My previously complaints about: tag-team edit warring (recent example: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), both-siding WP:ONUS, and bludgeoning A group of editors have been arguing, and edit warring, a bunch of Nakba denial myths, such as:
User:מתיאל was a disclosed paid editing account in 2021 1 2 3; the disclosure was removed from their userpage in April 2024. They made about 50 (non-deleted) edits between Sep 2021 and Mar 2024 (xtools). Top edited pages for User:ABHammad [67] and User:O.maximov [68], aside from Israel/Palestine, are articles about businesses. User:Galamore: Jan 2024 UPE ANI (blocked, unblocked); May AE "Galamore cautioned against continuing long term edit wars, especially when those edit wars have been the target of sockpuppetry and off-wiki canvassing."; May ANI for gaming 500. Seems pretty obvious to me that somebody bought/rented/expanded a UPEfarm and is using it to push far-right-Israeli propaganda, and I think deliberately provoke uncivil responses from the regular editors of the topic area is part of the strategy. Not a new trick. Colleagues: try not to take the bait, and I'll do the same. Admins: please clear this new farm from the topic area, thank you. If nobody wants to volunteer to do it -- I don't blame them -- let's ask the WMF to spend some money investigating and cleaning up this most-recent infiltration. Levivich (talk) 05:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
We now have a 6th revert in the "recent example" string above, from Oleg Yunakov, along with saying at the talk page that the "colonization" is a "statements that are only mentioned by select scientists" and "opinion of colonization is clearly a minority" (plus the mandatory ad hominem swipe). That is flat misrepresentation of the sources, and Oleg knows this because he participated in the discussion about it, where he brought one source--which, IIRC, is the one and only WP:RS that disputes "colonization" among over a dozen that were examined in that discussion. The current ongoing edit war by this group of editors isn't the first edit war about "colonization" on the Zionism article, we had one a month ago (1, 2, 3, 4). So we have the edit war, we have the talk page discussion where we bring over a dozen sources and examine them, and still they just go back to edit warring, bringing in new accounts, and still, people claim against all evidence that a mainstream view is a minority view. I did my part. I researched, I engaged in constructive talk page discussion, I posted over a dozen sources, I read the sources other people posted--and a number of other editors did the same. Can admins now do their part, please: TBAN the people who are misrepresenting sources by claiming that "Zionism was colonization" is not a mainstream view, who only brought one source (or zero sources, or didn't even participate in the talk page discussion at all, as is the case for some of these editors), and who continue to edit war. We don't really need to prove a UPEfarm for this, just TBAN them for the diffs I'm posting on this page. I think AE is the right place for this. Thanks. Levivich (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
It's a new day and we have more edit warring about Zionism and colonialism (today, at settler colonialism): 1, 2, 3. Nobody's edited that talk page since June 17. This is like every day in this topic area right now: it's a full-court press to make sure Wikipedia doesn't say Zionism is any kind of colonialism. Levivich (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by GalamoreI was tagged here by Levivich (I couldn't really understand his message, a concentration of accusations and confusion between users). Some time ago, I was asked not to participate in edit wars, and since then, I have been trying to edit relatively neutral topics. Levivich's accusation is out of place. Shabbat shalom and have a great weekend!Galamore (talk) 06:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000This report is entirely about an editor trying to win an edit war by means of noticeboard report. An editor whose total contribution is one massive revert and not a single talk page comment. It should be dismissed out of hand. Zerotalk 15:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC) To editor ScottishFinnishRadish: I am alarmed by your proposal that Nishidani is a net negative. In my 22 years of editing in the I/P area, it has been a rare event to encounter someone whose scholarship and ability to cut through to the heart of an issue stands out so strongly. He would be a good candidate for the most valuable I/P editor at the moment. To be sure, Nishidani doesn't have much patience with editors who arrive full of opinions and empty of facts, and there are times I wish he would state the obvious less bluntly. But reports like this are not really about Nishidani's behavior; they are an opportunistic response to being unable to match Nishidani in his depth of knowledge and command of the best sources. Nobody would bother otherwise. Zerotalk 09:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by JM2023Going off of what BilledMammal said, from the sole interaction with Nishidani that I can recall, this was my experience. This was in January. After I commented on another user's talk page, Nishidani appeared and removed my comment, saying
Feel free to read through my own comments there. This is, as far as I can recall, my first and only interaction with said editor. If this is their conduct with others as well, then... not a positive editing environment. I agree with TBUA that specific users always showing up to defend each other, in a way very closely correlating with whether or not they agree on one specific issue, should be a cause for concern. I left the topic area completely, and mostly retired from editing entirely, over what I've seen in the I-P space. JM (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by LokiFWIW, I think this case should be closed with no action. Not because I necessarily think Nishidani is a paragon of civility, but because I think if you're going to impose a restriction you should wait until the direct report actually has any merit at all. Otherwise you're incentivizing people to report opposing editors until action is taken against them. Loki (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by berchanhimezI disagree that whatever happens to OP should impact what happens to the person OP has reported. If an issue exists, it exists regardless of whether another user wants to expose themselves to the toxic environment that occurs from reporting that issue. While I make no comment on the issues raised about the person who posted this thread, I second the concerns OP and others have had about the reported user's repeated incivility in the topic area. It is a perfectly reasonable outcome that both the reported user and the one doing the reporting get sanctioned. But it is not appropriate to absolve the reported user of sanctions for their inappropriate behavior just because the OP also has not behaved appropriately. That is completely against the spirit of WP:BOOMERANG, which is to clarify that the OP will also be examined - not "in lieu" of the person they report, but in addition to. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Iskandar323@ScottishFinnishRadish: That Nishidani's:
Statement by Doug Weller)I know that I should not just say "per"... but I'm tired. I'm tired physically but much more I'm tired of these attacks on Nishidani. User:Zero0000 is absolutely right when he wrote that "In my 22 years of editing in the I/P area, it has been a rare event to encounter someone whose scholarship and ability to cut through to the heart of an issue stands out so strongly. He would be a good candidate for the most valuable I/P editor at the moment. To be sure, Nishidani doesn't have much patience with editors who arrive full of opinions and empty of facts, and there are times I wish he would state the obvious less bluntly. But reports like this are not really about Nishidani's behavior; they are an opportunistic response to being unable to match Nishidani in his depth of knowledge and command of the best sources." Nishidani is probably the most erudite editor I have ever come across here (there may be better ones, I just haven't met them). As Zero said, this should be dismissed out of hand.I also agree with User:Dan Murphy, both his first post and the tounge in cheek next one. And with User:Iskandar323. The filer should be sanctioned but as they don't edit in this topic a TB would be pointless. I also can't help wondering if someone contacted them, this all seems so odd. Doug Weller talk 13:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by TarnishedPathThis is an absurd report, filed because the defendant made two edits to restore to the consensus wording and one of them contained some minor incivility which was not directed at any particular editor. This smacks heavily of opportunistically trying to take out an ideological opponent. Frankly I'd expect more than a topic ban for the filler. What's to stop them engaging in this sort of behaviour in other CTOP areas in the future? I would hope for sanctions that ensure that can't happen. TarnishedPathtalk 02:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by LilianaUwUConsidering the OP of this thread was blocked as a compromised account, and that Nishidani has been repeatedly targeted for their edits in ARBPIA (remember Mschwartz1?), I think this should be procedurally closed. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by TryptofishI don't think I'm just some random newish account, and my one extended interaction with Nishidani was at Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism last year ([73], for example). Based on that, I have no doubt of his erudition, but I was also painfully aware of his, well, snottiness towards anyone with whom he disagrees. Whether that's a matter for AE is above my pay grade. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by (user)Result concerning Nishidani
|
78.147.140.112
Respondent (now editing as BRMSF (talk · contribs)) is sternly reminded to avoid misleading other editors through the use of multiple accounts and/or through logged out editing. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning 78.147.140.112
n/a
Notified at previous IP, including 1RR notification on December 31, 2023
Editor is a barrier to article improvement, reverting basic factual corrections demanding supposed consensus be obtained to replace inaccurate unsourced material with accurate sourced material. Given their comment of ""Your interest seems to be in whitewashing and not in documenting fact" on December 31, 2023, it is impossible to understand their repeated deletion of properly sourced content without adequate explanation. Important to note the RFC the IP started on the talk page is solely related to the lead of the article, and their reversal of straightforward factual, properly sourced corrections to unsourced material are a clear attempt to influence the result of the RFC, since the corrections to the main body/infobox will directly influence the wording of the lead. Kathleen's bike (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning 78.147.140.112Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by 78.147.140.112I have attempted to engage in constructive discussion but the above user has thus far been displaying very frustrating biases and expressing strange, bordering nonsensical, positions. I have sought to seek consensus for changes. 20:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)78.147.140.112 (talk) Statement by BRMSFAdditional: I am the IP in question; my IP address changes whenever my (somewhat unreliable) router resets, as such I could not remain on a single IP constantly. BRMSF (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by JackTheSecondProcedural comment: An ANI discussion on this topic was opened be the accused party, regarding the filer at wp:ani#User:Kathleen's Bike. Also, I requested the page protection level suggested below.
Statement by Star MississippiI protected the page subsequent to the ANI report but before seeing this because they were both edit warring. If any admin thinks it's resolved, feel free to unprotect. Star Mississippi 00:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning 78.147.140.112
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ustadeditor2011
Appeal declined. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Ustadeditor2011I would like to improve the lead section of the article with appropriate grammar and syntax. I would like to update the article with new references. Ustadeditor2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Ustadeditor2011 (talk) 10:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Daniel CaseStatement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ustadeditor2011Statements 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 Ustadeditor2011
|
Waterlover3
Indeffed as a normal admin action by me because I got to it first. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Waterlover3
On 26 May 2024, Waterlover3 was blocked for one week due to edit warring. Specifically, they were editing the CZ Scorpion Evo 3 page, adding information about how Hamas used the weapon.
Discussion concerning Waterlover3Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Waterlover3Statement by FortunateSonsUnfortunately, the defendant is either unwilling or unable to understand the relevant editing restrictions. I’m not sure if it’s CIR (or perhaps age?), but that doesn’t really matter. Just about everything, including their talk page (which was modified after they were made aware of ARBPIA, at which point they should have noticed an issue) implies that they are NOTHERE, or don’t attempt to separate their significant personal biases from the editing. FortunateSons (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by SelfstudierThis is a non EC editor, any contribution that is not an edit request should be reverted with reason WP:ARBECR and editor reminded of the restrictions. Persistent breaches by such editors should usually result in a block, just ping an admin, an AE case shouldn't be necessary.Selfstudier (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by Levivich (Waterlover)"ok i am pretty sure hamas doesnt involve itself with US copyright laws KEK since yknow its designated as a terrorist organization" "Hands off Waterlover, death to IOF swine!" (IOF = "Israeli Occupation Forces") "o7 long live the revolution long live the resistance" (O7 = October 7) That's um not good. We shouldn't be allowing that kind of rhetoric, just like we shouldn't be saying things like "nuke them all". I know it's a minefield with people expressing support/opposition for parties in a war, but I think we can draw lines here, at openly calling for death to people, or celebrating attacks on civilians. Especially not in response to template warnings about copyvio or edit warring. User talk:Waterlover3#May 2024 is old but still. They were blocked for edit warring after that. Then in June, calling an editor a disgusting pig, which someone warned them about on their UTP. This is all rather concerning. (Also maybe remind AFC about ECR.) Levivich (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Dan MurphyI would urge any admin who doesn't know that Bashir Gemayel was an Israeli ally/asset against the Palestinian Liberation Organization in the Lebanese Civil War to abstain from making decisions about who is fit to edit articles about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. What a website. (Waterlover? Should be 86ed.)Dan Murphy (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Result concerning Waterlover3
|
Amayorov
Closed with no action. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Amayorov
This user has been reported at the Administrator's Noticeboard regarding potential EC gaming here, July 7 2024. There has not been much response to that and since the reported user has been and continues to make so many changes and is currently engaged in so many talk page discussions, I am reporting it here in hopes of more swift action being taken. I commented at that thread about my concerns, being: "Account created in 2016 but first edit made a few days ago and quickly put in 500 edits, immediately jumps into Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic area, seemingly POV-pushing. Seems to be an experienced user as well." It seems quite clear this is an experienced user who has engaged in EC gaming and is therefore most likely a sock account that is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to push a point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IOHANNVSVERVS (talk • contribs) 20:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning AmayorovStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AmayorovIf the complaint is about me being a sock account, then that is false. I could reveal and confirm my true identity if deemed necessary. My account was first created when a university practical asked me to create a web page about a chemical compound in 2016. A couple weeks ago, I started to be interested in Wikipedia editing, and have edited over 150 pages, creating a few of them practically from scratch. I’m interested in the IP history, about which I’ve read a lot. Since gaining extended privileges, I’ve made improvements to those articles. Those edits have arguably been better-sources than any of my other work, due to my having more knowledge to my having more knowledge on the topic. I do not deny that I wanted to contribute to these topics from the start. I did not push an agenda but instead engaged in respectful and good-faith discussion on Talk pages. In a few cases, I conceded a point. The only complaint I got is that I use Benny Morris as my reference historian of choice. Whenever possible, I try to corroborate his claims using work by other scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amayorov (talk • contribs) 20:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Amayorov
|
JoeJShmo
JoeJShmo (talk · contribs) is topic banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict for 6 months and 1000 edits by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning JoeJShmo
JoeJShmo, a non-XC editor, has been warned about CT restrictions in force on certain pages related to Palestine–Israel conflict. In particular, they were explained that they can only place edit requests[78]. As can be seen, they immediately opposed. Even though several established editors and an experienced admin Doug Weller tried to reason with them, they didn't report or sanction them after a repeated violation, this effort has unfortunately failed – JoeJShmo continued to post on a CT-restricted page Talk:Mossad. I have no idea what is needed to stop them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJoeJShmo&diff=1234354020&oldid=1233536763
Discussion concerning JoeJShmoStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by JoeJShmo(note: I've just seen the word limit. I'm not sure if I'm over it and I apologize if I am. I'm not sure what to do as I believe all the info below is highly relevant.) The statement above by user Kashmiri is grossly misleading. I'll explain my position. It started when I was unaware of the EC rules and edited in a page relating to the Israeli Palestine conflict (I edit on a small phone where the warnings on top of many pages are automatically collapsed), and I got a warning on my talk page shortly after, so from there on I was aware of the EC rule. Shortly after I posted on a talk page in this topic, being unaware the rules extended to all discussions, and got a warning about that too, so at this point I was fully aware of the rules (see here where I request clarification on the rules in another topic before posting). Later I posted an edit request in the Mossad page which someone responded to. I responded in turn, making what to me was a logical assumption that the exception to edit request includes responses to editors who seemed unaware of the exact arguments behind the edit request. Thereafter, Kashmiri posted a fairly rude warning on my talk page, saying something like 'are you asking to get sanctioned' (it may be relevant to note here that this user may feel some sort of animosity towards me after I had previously called out that they had not apologized for something anti-Semitic they had said, see my talk page under 'warning'). I explained the ambiguousness of the rules and questioned this user's lack of assuming good faith. I went on to raise this topic in the village pump policy page (WP:VPP#Talk pages of contentious topics), and the responses so far have been mixed, and a couple people have brought forth the idea that perhaps clarifying the request or responding to an editor who hasn't understood the request would be allowed. I think it relevant to mention that the request I was making in the Mossad page was a purely grammatical request, quite un-controversial (a matter of whether common usage in regards to the Mossad is to use the word 'the'). In light of the fact that the EC rule was obviously intended to prevent provocative and uninformed contribution in controversial areas (some editors in the above linked discussion even pointed to this for the reason to be strict in this matter), and the ambiguousness of the policy, I though it logical that any editor with common sense would not take issue with the discussion I continued to have at the Mossad talk page. I would classify my discussion there as clarifying my position (a matter of using the word 'the') and bringing further sources to my position. If any editor had taken a clear position against my proposed request that I didn't think stemmed from a simple misunderstanding and a possible lack of clarity on my part, I don't think I would have responded further. In conclusion, I believe there's a certain amount of good faith inherent in the decisions of when to make issues out of policy (for a more obvious example, I'd point to non EC editors who respond 'thank you' to an editor that implemented their request), and unfortunately, I don't think Kashmiri has demonstrated that good faith here today.
Statement by SelfstudierAlso see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Talk pages of contentious topics. I also made an effort with defendant at their talk page and rapidly concluded that nothing would help.Selfstudier (talk) 10:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by NableezyJust noting that while this was open the user added another extended confirmed violation here. nableezy - 13:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by TarnishedPathGiven the manner in which the editor has obtained XC, I think a sensible solution would be its revocation until they have 1,000 mainspace edits and a broadly construed TBAN until that time. TarnishedPathtalk 11:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning JoeJShmo
|
Dadude sandstorm
Dadude sandstorm (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked as an ordinary admin action by Callanecc (talk · contribs). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Dadude sandstorm
I gave the CT awareness alert after noticing a problematic history of edits in the topic area, including Special:Diff/1234357835. Today's edit to Destiny (streamer) linked above left me speechless, though. Dadude sandstorm is incapable of contributing productively to this topic area and possibly beyond. DanCherek (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Dadude sandstormStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Dadude sandstormMy sincere apologies for this lapse in discipline. I got annoyed seeing the dismissive comment, which when added to the fact that the comment was from an IP user, incensed me. I offer to redact that comment/edit it to be more conducive to maintaining a good atmosphere on wikipedia. On the other hand, I strongly feel those changes to the Destiny article + the edit summary are nothing better than what such a subject deserves. Having openly outed himself as a quasi-fascist by supporting political assassinations and murder within a day, the article needs to be more strongly worded. while i do admit the (objective correct but inappropriate) mention of 'cuck' was the wrong thing to do, the rest of the changes were but simply stating his actions from the last 24 hours.
Statement by Isabelle BelatoI'm surprised they weren't indef blocked after this egregious edit. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 02:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Dadude sandstorm
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by JoeJShmo
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).
- Appealing user
- JoeJShmo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – JoeJShmo💌 23:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sanction being appealed
- Topic ban from the subject of Arab-Israel conflict for 6 months and 1000 edits, imposed at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Results concerning JoeJShmo, logged at WP:Arbitration enforcement log#2024 (CT/A-I)
- Administrator imposing the sanction
- ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Notification of that administrator
Statement by JoeJShmo
I request the topic ban to be lifted.
Background: An Arb request was opened with concerns on violating ARBPIA as a non EC editor. I explained at length in multiple discussions that I never violated the rules intentionally; I hadn't been clear on what exactly was not allowed (see my statements here, also see my responses on my talk page). Red-tailed hawk ended up giving me a topic ban until I reached EC, asserting that I don't seem to understand the restriction. I thought that assertion was off the mark, but I didn't appeal as I was about to hit EC. There was no gaming the system in hitting EC; every edit was either a part of productive discussion[80], or contributed to build Wikipedia. When I hit EC, I performed a bunch of edits that I had had in the back of my mind in the IAC topic, in what were good-faith contributions. Editors raised concerns with these edits at my talk page and at the Arb request, and shortly after, ScottishFinnishRadish enforced a 6 month 1000 edit ban. Their reasoning reads: "...sanctioned for lack of understanding of WP:PAGS, NPOV issues, and a technical 1RR."[81]
The edits in question are edits to the War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war article. My first edit was to remove a small subsection that I believed was in the wrong section. I do realize now that I could have opened a discussion first, or moved it to where I thought it should go instead of just deleting it. That was a mistake on my part. My second edit was adding context to a human shield instance. I believe that edit was fully warranted; the only source for the incident was the shopkeeper himself (from the video alone it could've been explained as a detainment), who is quoted in the sources as saying he was used to deter stone throwing. Even if there would've been room to disagree, I cannot see this as an example of violating NPOV or PAGS. My third edit I believe similarly warranted, and I didn't realize it would need a discussion, though I learned quickly that more things than usual need discussions in this topic area. However, this does not reflect a lack of understanding and adherence in the above policies. My fourth edit mostly falls in the same boat as the third, as I didn't realize anyone was reverting until I had complete my edits. However, also in the fourth edit, I made a mistake in changing a word from 'stated' to 'claimed'; see the following discussion on my talk page, where a couple of editors helpfully informed me of the terms of the mistake, and I thanked them.[82] This is the discussion SFR pointed me to to back his claims of a violation of NPOV[83] (he stopped responding after we had exchanged a couple messages). However, this doesn't reflect a lack of NPOV, as I actually made the different phrasings consistent with one another, per NPOV, although I now know I should have had both read 'stated' instead of 'claimed' per the discussion linked above. Part of my fourth edit, and my fifth edit, have not been challenged so far.
As for 1RR: common practice is not to treat status quo edits as reverts. In this case, it had been nearly 6 months. See discussion here.[84] I believe I've demonstrated in the past a pattern of mindfulness of NPOV, along with a willingness and desire, to accept new information and guidance. I do often seek clarification from editors on the exact problem they are raising, and it is possible that some may have misconstrued that as being 'argumentative'.
In conclusion, I don't believe there's any evidence of POV or a lack of policy awareness to the point of justifying even a temporary topic ban. Some editors may believe I have been too hasty to edit, and I will be slowing down in the future, as I noted above. However, the concerns outlined by SFR do not exist.
- Note: The amount of edits counted towards EC that were violations of ECR is negligible, although there were plenty of discussion following the violations where I became better informed. I don't see why discussion wouldn't count towards EC, and even if that is the issue at hand (it isn't), a blanket EC status removal for ~100 edits would've been the answer, not what we have right now. A great majority of my edits have been completely unrelated. JoeJShmo💌 00:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'd like to say one last thing. I realize I am getting too emotionally involved in this topic right now. Though I don't agree with the 6 month restriction, whatever happens, I'd like to voluntarily take a one month topic ban in the article pages (not discussion), and 100 edits. I'm not here for any one topic, and I enjoy other tasks far more; lately I've been working on making a template for a series of articles. I'd like to thank all the editors who gave me helpful advice so far in editing and following policy: DougWeller, Wordsmith, starship.paint, SFR and RTH (sorry if I missed anyone). As @DougWeller pointed out to me, I realize I can be passive aggressive when I'm under pressure. That's something I'm working on, and I hope to have a positive relationship with everyone in the future. Thank you for hearing me out. JoeJShmo💌 07:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Quick response to SFR. Per 1RR, as I told him on my talk page, I didn't notice anyone was reverting until after I had completed all my edits, and I explained my language in the summary. it's disingenuous not to acknowledge my response. Per MAGS, even if it were true that I didn't have the necessary experience, SFR hasn't demonstrated that I am a overly disruptive editor; and I am EC already. SFR agan references POV violations, but I have yet to see someone demonstrate POV from my edits there. Vague handwaving and linking my edits is not going to cut it. JoeJShmo💌 19:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear: as I am EC, without gaming the system, there would need to be a separate community wide discussion with consensus, to justify handing out topic bans based on a perceived 'lack of experience'. The bar was set, and I've reached it. Adjustments to the requirements of hitting EC is a different discussion. JoeJShmo💌 19:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Quick response to SFR. Per 1RR, as I told him on my talk page, I didn't notice anyone was reverting until after I had completed all my edits, and I explained my language in the summary. it's disingenuous not to acknowledge my response. Per MAGS, even if it were true that I didn't have the necessary experience, SFR hasn't demonstrated that I am a overly disruptive editor; and I am EC already. SFR agan references POV violations, but I have yet to see someone demonstrate POV from my edits there. Vague handwaving and linking my edits is not going to cut it. JoeJShmo💌 19:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish
The topic ban was placed because the editor clearly does not have the necessary experience and grasp on WP:PAGS to contribute constructively in the topic area. I brought up the technical 1RR violation as it demonstrated that they immediately jumped into removing, even after being reverted, prose that they disagreed with. They did this claiming NPOV violations, and demanding that their edits not be reverted[85][86]. We don't need more stonewalling POV warring going on in the topic area. The discussion at User talk:JoeJShmo#WP:CLAIM demonstrates a lack of a clear understanding of WP:PAGS which is necessary to edit constructively in this incredibly contentious topic. This comes after a block and a topic ban for behavior in the topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Selfstudier
No comment on the sanction itself other than I think appellant largely brought this on themselves. As I have indicated before, think we ought to try and avoid that non EC editors end up at this board at all, that's not going to help someone new get to grips with the way WP works, not in a CT. Selfstudier (talk) 11:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by JoeJShmo
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 BilledMammal
A major issue in the enforcement of the ECP restriction is the inconsistency. Whether editors are sanctioned for violating it appears to be entirely based on chance. For example, several months ago I reported IOHANNVSVERVS and Osps7 for gaining ECP primarily through ECR violations, but no action was taken. (To date, neither appear to have made more than 500 edits outside the topic area.) Since then, I've declined to report other such editors, as I've been under the impression that it is not seen as an actionable issue.
I think we need to be consistent in how we treat editors who gain extended-confirmed status through violations; either we sanction all of them or none of them, and if we are going to sanction them we impose comparable sanctions. Personally, I think some level of sanction is appropriate, but it needs to be consistently applied, as to do otherwise would be unfair for editors like JoeJShmo.
See also Redefinition of ECP and Redefining ECP, which are about how to address good-faith edits that work towards extended-confirmed status; the rough consensus of the community appears to be that we should not adjust ECP to make it more difficult to work towards, and nor should we fault editors for working towards it unless they do so through bad-faith edits. BilledMammal (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by TarnishedPath
The sanction looked very measured to me given that the editor had not long before received a block for 31 hours for NPA. This topic area needs less disruption, not more. 1000 extra edits and 6 months will give the editor sufficient time to understand WP policies and guidelines. In that way the sanction is purely preventative. TarnishedPathtalk 11:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by The Kip
While I do agree with BM’s concerns about applying ECR in a consistent manner (and/or redefining it), I concur with those above in that I really don’t see an issue with this particular sanction. As I recently told another editor, hopefully the TBAN results in moderated/refined behavior that they need to develop before any potential return to the area. The Kip (contribs) 17:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Statement by berchanhimez
From what I've seen, there is no consensus whatsoever on what even counts as gaming EC. And that seems to be the crux of this topic ban - a belief that the editor "gamed" EC and is still not ready, so it is being "reset" to basically start counting over. While I appreciate administrators are given wide latitude to impose sanctions for Arbitration Enforcement purposes, I do not believe such a "reset of EC" is in line with current lack of consensus on what gaming is (or even if it's a problem to begin with). That said, I don't see any reason that, given the edits after the appellant reached automatic extended confirmed being applied, that a regular topic ban (indefinite or time limited), without a number of edits, for a specific topic area would not be appropriate. I realize that this may be contradictory - I don't believe a "until you redo extended confirmed requirements" topic ban is something that should be applied - yet I also think that a regular topic ban shouldn't be avoided just because the user recently got extended confirmed. There is also the question of what the "extra" restrictions of edit count and time frame mean for appeals. Is it intended that the appellant in this case can't appeal it before 1000 total edits and 6 months? Is it intended that appeals before that time should just be declined, or looked at more carefully? Is it intended to automatically expire at that time, and who is responsible for "assessing" the 1000 edits and 6 months criteria to decide if it's expired? What if the user gets to 900 edits, creates 3 new articles in other contentious topic areas (that they aren't topic banned from) without any issue whatsoever? Best to just make it a regular topic ban, either time-limited or indefinite - and let the user follow normal appeal processes as anyone else if/when they feel they have shown their competence enough to get it removed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Result of the appeal by JoeJShmo
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- In principle, I think that the topic ban issued by ScottishFinnishRadish is appropriate given the series of events that led to here, though I would like to hear the admin's response here to clarify the reasons that this topic ban was given. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Tobyw87
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 Tobyw87
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Starship.paint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Tobyw87 (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/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Violates WP:AGF, WP:NPA, casts aspersions. Quotes below. starship.paint (RUN) 12:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- 05:14, 20 July 2024 Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia
- 05:01, 20 July 2024 (bolding done by starship.paint) Again you are fact-free and proud. As this is my own talk page I am free to say what I want (unlike the rest of the entirety of Wikipedia which is clearly pro-Hamas and pro-murdering as many Jews as possible) … knows more about the ICJ than any of these Wikipedia editors who would rather cite in favor of terrorist sympathizers than the truth … so you can continue to lie about it all you want but it changes nothing at all. Eventually the truth will win and your hateful/bigoted narrative will lose.
- 19:02, 18 July 2024 Your comment and the comments of many others are indicative of the extreme anti-Israel (Jewish) bias going on on Wikipedia right now
- 21:55, 12 June 2024 by the looks of of this verbiage it seems like editors here want to vilify Israel using a different lexicon
- 19:05, 9 June 2024 You just want to push a narrative instead of saying the obvious, which is Hamas and the IDF share blame here.
- 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 17:29, 9 June 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
- Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on 05:28, 14 July 2024
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Tobyw87
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 Tobyw87
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Tobyw87
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.