Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

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:

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
An admin advising another user to deliberately introduce errors   1 July 2024 0/3/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland Motion (orig. case) 21 June 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration


An admin advising another user to deliberately introduce errors

Initiated by Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today at 19:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Just Step Sideways

Words can barely describe how much I do not want to do this but I'm afraid it seems needed. I am merely bringing this to the committee, I have no actual involvement in it. The intended scope is admin conduct of Schwede66, who openly admits that they deliberately advised Alexeyevitch via email to introduce some small errors to specific pages, as a sort of ham-handed trap to "prove" that Panamitsu was stalking/hounding them.

So, that's like, really dumb and when confronted with it I would expect an admin of Schwede66's tenure and experience to be able to see it, but I'm afraid they've chosen instead to double down. When directly asked if they would do it again the answer was a resounding yes [4]. This, to me, is the "smoking gun" that says this person has lost their way as an admin.

I'm shocked, frankly, I respect Schwede66, they are a real workhorse at WP:PERM and many other places. I don't have a long list of other serious issues to present, but encouraging a user to vandalize article content to create a "gotcha moment" on another user, then failing to comprehend why others object is a dealbreaker for me. I have said, loudly and often, that we all mistakes, it is what we do when they are pointed out that is the true test. Weaponizing actual article content to try and trap another user is so far out of bounds that doing it to begin with is arguably sufficient cause for a desysop, pledging that you would do so again when the tactic is questioned certainly is. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that this as this is a single-issue case, unless other serious concerns are brought forward it could probably be resolved by motion. I've already presented all the evidence I think is needed in that one diff. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To all those saying " a trout could have handled this" I would have agreed if it were not for the the apparent deaf ears at ANI and the clear statement that they would do it again. The rebuke had already been given, and the very premise of it was rejected, that is the only reason I brought this here. That being said I am also willing to take Schwede66 at their word when that they say that they now see how firmly the community opposes this sort of chicanery and as such no longer support a desysop.
All too often when things get to this point admins let their ego take over and they refuse to acknowledge an error, and I'm glad that isn't what has happened here. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 15:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Schwede66

Excuse the delay in responding; I had a rather busy day in the office.

Now that a number of editors have weighed in, I see that there is universal disagreement in the community with deliberately introducing errors. I would not have thought that this is where it lands. At ANI, I stated: unless I can be persuaded that I've got this completely the wrong way around, I would do the exact same thing the next time a situation like this arose. I hear what the community says, apologise, and won't do it again. I've been successfully persuaded. Schwede66 05:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alexeyevitch

This has not been an easy decision for me. I was initally skeptical about this because I knew I should not be doing this. I would not like to see this behavior again (from all of us) but it is ultimately Mr. Wilke's decision if he would do the same in the future.

I also think the "gotcha moment" and laying traps for each other is silly. I will not take approaches like this in the future. I primarily edit Christchurch-related articles so naturally I was skeptical seeing these edits.

(IMO) At present time. I don't think this is worth desysoping nor any administrative actions. I don't want this stuff to hapen in the future. Yes, putting little mistakes in about 5-ish articles is wrong (which have all since been reverted). This doesn't change my preference on using U.S English elsewhere. But this behavior cannot continue on those articles.

Mr. Wilke, I don't want to pressurize you but might want to reconsider weaponizing articles in the future. But it is ultimately his decision if he does this or not (in the future). Us three all have wrongdoings and we cannot continue to act like this. Alexeyevitch(talk) 23:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My stress has subsided... I hope my message wasn't confronting. That was not my intent. But I do hope we can prevent this stuff from happening in the future and continue working on the project "civilly". Alexeyevitch(talk) 00:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Panamitsu

I have encountered Schwede66 throughout the 13 months that I have been 'seriously' editing Wikipedia, and I have always enjoyed working with him (and I hope this continues in future). I have never had, or witnessed, any problems with him in the past which suggests that this was one mistake rather than a longlasting problem. This, and the fact that he reported me to the AN/I rather than immediately 'abusing' administrator privileges suggests to me that this event does not demonstrate a lack of administrating competence. Thus, I do not believe that he should stripped of any administrator rights.

It was ultimately up to Alexeyevitch's discretion to decide whether or not to introduce these errors, not Schwede66's. ―Panamitsu (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DeCausa

Arbcom, really? This seems to be the key point per quote from Schwede66 linked by JSS: Hence, we have two situations: an editor worried that he is being stalked and a way of finding out whether that's true, and a spelling mistake in one article, and an unbalanced bracket in another article, for a rather limited period of time. The former, I would suggest, is a problem. The latter is not. However, some editors above make out that the latter is the real problem. I fail to see that. I really do. If we want to build an encyclopaedia, shouldn't we be more worried about editors getting on with one another, and if they really can't, keep them apart from one another, as opposed to fretting about a couple of minor mistakes being introduced temporarily? What am I not getting? Where is the perspective in all of this?And to answer your question directly, unless I can be persuaded that I've got this completely the wrong way around, I would do the exact same thing the next time a situation like this arose. Trout perhaps. At most. I can see this easily getting out of all proportion though, which is regrettable. This is easily handleable by the community with no need for Arbcom involvement. DeCausa (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RoySmith

Just to make it easier to find, the thread in question is currently at WP:ANI#Wikihounding report but it looks like it's going to roll over into Archive 1159 soon.

As for the matter at hand, yeah this was a stupid suggestion for anybody to give, and even more so for a highly-experienced admin. I've worked with Schwede66 quite a bit at WP:DYK and never had any problems with their work, so unless there's some other pattern of problems that I'm not aware of, I would treat this as a one-off. And assuming they understand why this was stupid and endeavor to do better, I can't see this needing anything more than a trouting. RoySmith (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that a similar thing happened a couple of years ago, involving WMF staff inserting material into enwiki pages to use for testing some software. One could start at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 5#Procedures on test accounts and follow the links from there. The gist is that after a lot of yelling and screaming, the WMF folks understood the problem, came up with a plan to prevent it from happening again, and life went on. Exactly like what should happen here. RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newyorkbrad

Deliberately introducing errors into Wikipedia, or encouraging another to do so, is improper; and remains so even where the errors are minor, temporary, and intended to serve a broader purpose. See generally, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2 (although that was a more complex set of facts).

The suggestion of making these "test" or "trap" edits was unproductive here in any event, because it seems undisputed that one editor was tracking another's edits, and the relevant question was not whether this was happening but why. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram#Following another editor's contributions and Wikipedia:Harassment#Hounding.

If, as appears, this is an isolated situation, a general reminder of these principles in the arbitrator comments might suffice to resolve the admin-conduct case request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AP 499D25

Like what I wrote on the AN/I thread, my good faith assumption tells me that the reason why User:Schwede66 was doing what he was doing, was because he was with the belief that User:Panamitsu was following around and 'stalking' User:Alexeyevitch's edits, and so suggested User:Alexeyevitch to do several more of the kind of edits that would get User:Panamitsu's attention. The big thing that stands out to me here, is that there is no actual abuse of admin privileges. Instead of taking this matter into his own hands, Schwede proceeded to an AN/I report to garner second opinions and suggestions from other users / the community, regarding what is actually going on and who is in the wrong here. Which, it did turn out that this issue wasn't a matter of stalking, rather it was User:Panamitsu watching over and correcting a series of guideline violations from another contributor (this is a legitmate reason for reading another user's contribs history as set out at WP:HOUNDING).

I will definitely admit however that Schwede's response to this matter has been less than satisfactory to me. He did not seem to apologise or take full responsibility for his actions, rather, "shoved them under the rug" (ignored them) if that makes sense. He did get that Alexeyevitch was in the wrong though (putting American English in articles with 'Use NZ English' template), going as far as warning them at AN/I. Since there was no abuse of admin privileges and this seems to be more of a simple behavioural communication issue, I would rather see Schwede66 given one formal warning regarding how they handled this matter, rather than a straight-up removal of admin privileges (as they were not misused).

Also, just to be clear, I don't see a reason for any administrative action to be taken against User:Alexeyevitch at this time. They have owned up to their mistake and have stated they will not do it anymore. — AP 499D25 (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

There is another reason that advising someone to introduce errors is a bad idea. If editor A thinks editor B needs checking, A is welcome to follow B and fix obvious problems. If B introduces errors and A fixes them, that's bad for B and good for A. It's only stalking/hounding if A is fiddling with B's edits when they do not need A's attention. Johnuniq (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AirshipJungleman29

Pretty silly, so I can see why some think a trout is not sufficient. Thus, my suggested motion: a {{whale}} administered with precision and gusto. Anyone disagree? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deepfriedokra

Meh. A whale, of course. All the way around. However, I'd like to see the other two parties address what they should'nt've done and what they should've done instead. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chess

Administrators using their judgement to resolve disputes onwiki is their job, and sometimes they get it wrong. These are three principles ArbCom should consider here.

  1. When an admin is unsure of what action to take, they should err on the side of gathering more information.
  2. If an issue is still unclear, administrators should try to resolve an alleged issue rather than doing nothing.
  3. Unclear definitions of bad behaviour discourage administrators from doing something in unclear situations.

Schwede66's actions attempted to address points 1 and 2 but did not do so in a way the community found acceptable. Rather than giving Schwede66 a trout and a general reminder of principles, it would be helpful if ArbCom identified specifically what Schwede66 did right, what they did wrong, and where they could improve if they encountered a similar situation.

Schwede66 acted properly when they intervened in a dispute between Alexeyevitch and Panamitsu, recommending that they stop following each other's edits. When the dispute continued, and Panamitsu began following Alexeyevitch, Schwede66 tried to gather more information. The way they did so was wrong, because Schwede66 advised PanamitsuAlexeyevitch to introduce errors into articles to bait AlexeyevitchPanamitsu into interacting with those errors. Later, Schwede66 did the right thing by bringing the issue to WP:ANI and seeking external input on the dispute.

This is an error in a chain of generally constructive behaviour, and the overall series of events shows that Schwede66's goal was to improve the encyclopedia; they haven't "lost their way" as an admin.

For next steps, ArbCom should decide whether or not "baiting" editors to create proof of WikiHounding is acceptable so long as the "bait" does not consist of disruptive edits. ArbCom might also recommend that Schwede66 consult with other administrators at an earlier stage in the process of dispute resolution, since external input may have prevented this mistake. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to fix a mistake. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GrayStorm

In my opinion, the error on Schwede66's part, if indeed a one time mistake, warrant only a formal warning, and does not require desyoping. However, if this issue were repeated, or if it seems like it might be, I would be more open to the possibility of desyoping. Schwede66 said on AN/I unless I can be persuaded that I've got this completely the wrong way around, I would do the exact same thing the next time a situation like this arose. I think it would be reasonable to assume that, seeing the statements on this page, Schwede66 would be persuaded to not pull the same stunt again, and they could be left with a formal warning. However, if in their statement (which has not been made as of writing this) they express that they would persuade editors to introduce errors into the mainspace (no matter the reason) then I would suggest arbcom move forward with hearing this case. GrayStorm(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.) 04:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Schwede66)

The advice that was given by Schwede66 is an interesting twist on the introduction of a fictitious entry in a map as a copyright trap. The purpose of the introduced error was not to detect the improper propagation of the error as evidence of plagiarism, but to detect the correction of the error as evidence of improper stalking. Being intellectually interesting does not mean that it was a good idea; it was not.

ArbCom exists to handle disputes that cannot be resolved by the community. This dispute could have been referred to by the community, because the community has the ability to warn or admonish administrators, although not to remove administrators. This case, in my opinion, calls for either a warning or an admonition, as if the distinction between those two actions is meaningful, and should have gone to WP:AN. The filing party states that this is a single-issue case and can be resolved by motion. Since we are here, it is probably simpler for ArbCom to issue a warning or an admonition than to send it to the community to issue a warning or an admonition. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pinguinn

It is true that it's completely within the community's power to trout Schwede, and that's really all he deserves. However, I agree with Chess and Newyorkbrad that it would be helpful for ArbCom to establish some principles so that this doesn't happen again. In particular I'd like to know where responsibility lies when an admin directs a user to make certain edits. Should the admin take some of the blame for a bad edit?

I don't know if ArbCom has ever passed principles via motion before. If a case has to be opened to pass principles it should probably be very short (no evidence phase and possibly no workshop phase) as all the facts are known and I really don't think Schwede messed up badly enough to have to go through a full size case. Pinguinn 🐧 06:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Waggers

Just Step Sideways was absolutely correct to initiate this case request and I was minded to do the same myself. Like everyone else I hoped we could resolve this at the AN/I thread but, having pointed out that it's never acceptable to deliberately introduce errors - even small/temporary ones - into Wikipedia articles, Schwede66 doubled down and said he'd do the same thing again in the same situation. It was clear we weren't going to resolve the issue there at that point, so unfortunately it had to come here.

I'm pleased though that Schwede66 has had a change of heart in his statement on this page. I've no reason not to assume good faith on that - as others have said he's generally a very competent admin and a well respected editor. It's a shame it took the initiation of an ArbCom case request for him to see the light, but now that he has, I don't think it needs to go any further.

Statement by Levivich

This should be declined as it can be and was being handled just fine by ANI. Arbcom isn't needed for every mistake an admin makes; a warning not to do it again can be issued at ANI (and would have been the outcome had it not been short-circuited by this arbcom filing). More concerning to me is JSS once again intervening on-wiki to effectuate a consensus on WPO. Levivich (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

Storm, please meet teacup. There never was anything for arbcom to do here, and following Schwede66's statement above there is even less for them to do. It is a very long-standing principle that occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship and no evidence has been presented that this is anything other than, at worst, an isolated error.

Statement by Joe Roe

Wait, did I accidentally watchlist Wikipedia:Manufactured drama from Wikipediocracy instead of WP:ARC? – Joe (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GRuban

A few people asked what should have been recommended to the user to check for wiki-stalking. A modest suggestion: how about recommend they make useful edits, to pages they had not edited before? There is no shortage of articles that need minor help, for example Wikipedia:Citation_needed#How_to_help_reduce_the_backlog.

As a side note, if someone were following me around and correcting my minor spelling mistakes, I would be overjoyed! I would buy that person a beer! But I recognize that might not be true of everyone. --GRuban (talk)

Statement by Amakuru

Not too much to add here, and thankfully (as someone who considers Schwede66 a good wikifriend) this seems to be headed towards a peaceful outcome. However, I do consider the statements above by Thruduulf and Joe Roe to be wide of the mark. To advise Alexeyevitch to deliberately introduce errors was a good-faith but rather silly mistake IMHO, whether hounding was suspected or not, and it seems to have become more worrying when Schwede refused to acknowledge in the ANI thread that they had made a mistake and said they would repeat this. For WP:ADMINACCT issues, arbcom is the only place to really go. Thus, per Waggers statement and the nominator, I think it was necessary for this request to be made. But it's also done its job and Schwede has now apologised, so an actual case isn't needed. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

An admin advising another user to deliberately introduce errors: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

An admin advising another user to deliberately introduce errors: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/3/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Just acknowledging that I am reading this and looking forward to hearing from Schwede. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Decline The thread might have been open two weeks but the precipitating post to this case request only happened yesterday. I think we would have likely gotten this result - Schwede realizing that they shouldn't do what happened here again - at ANI, though I imagine it happened quicker because of the case request. I also appreciate Thrydullf's mentioning a perennial ArbCom principle that Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline - Per the comments by Just Step Sideways and Schwede66 since the case request was opened. This was brought here as a single issue, and absent evidence to the contrary that this is more than an isolated incident, I see no reason to not take Schwede66 at their word that it will not reoccur. - Aoidh (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read through the above. Leaning toward declining as the issue that brought this case to ArbCom seems to be handled at ANI. I am going to wait a couple of days to make a declaration as I want to allow editors to bring forward concerns, if necessary. Z1720 (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per the above and the statement by Schwede66. Primefac (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. 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.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127

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:

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127

Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads

Initiated by Just Step Sideways at 22:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Just Step Sideways

Two recent situations have revealed what appears to be some vagueness regarding when and if users should email private evidence to the committee, the utility of doing so when it concerns a curent on-wiki, but non-ArbCom discussion, and also if merely saying that a thread exists is not permitted.

(I seem to recall that there is a case somewhere where the committee discussed very similar issues, but I've been unable to locate it in the archives.)

  • In one case a user posted nothing more than the name of a very long thread at an off-wiki criticism site (they actually didn't even spell it the same as the actual thread title). It turned out that within this off-wiki thread, if one dug through it long enough, there was a link to a different thread where the very user who had made the on-wiki post was outed. This resulted in a very large number of diffs on a busy page being supressed, even though there was no direct link to any outing.
  • In an ongoing RFA, some users are opposing based on what could only be described as completely harmless posts on that same forum. The recent supression action would seem to indicate that even posting the name of the thread on-wiki would lead to further supression, which is obviously to be avoided. One of these users has stated that they contacted the committee before posting, but it is unclear what this was meant to accomplish or what the committee may or may not have said back to them, if anything.
  • I considered reproducing some or all of the RFA candidates posts on-wiki to demonstrate the point that they are comletely unproblematic unto themselves, but given the events described above I don't know if that would also lead to supression actions.

I feel like this has the potantial to create a chilling effect where users will be afraid to post anything at all on off-wiki criticism sites, no matter how innocuous their posts are the topic being discussed may be, and that even mentioning the name of a thread on such a site is now forbidden, which seems a bit extreme to me.

I understand and agree that directly posting a link on-wiki to a specific post that contains outing is a clear violation of the outing policy. It is less clear to me that posting merely the name of an extremely long thread with no actual link to the thread at all is a violation. I would therefore ask that the committee clarify where the line is.

I've deliberately not named the individuals involved in these incidents as this is matter of interpretation of policy, specifically Wikipedia:Oversight. I can email more detailed information if needed but I imagine it should be fairly easy for you all to determine what I'm referring to. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Barkeep, I'm not sure what I've got wrong, because I had to kind of piece together what actually happened as the material was supressed. I was pretty sure I'd got it right but guesswork is risky that way. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eek, I guess it comes as no surprise that we don't see eye-to-eye on this, but there is never a situation that calls for linking to or discussing a Wikipediocracy thread. seems a bit extreme to me. Do I agree with everything that is said and done over there? No, but I could say the same about here. There are several ongoing threads over there that contain valid and insightful criticism of Wikipedia content and policy. I have personally taken multiple actions here that have improved the project, that I likely wouldn't have done had I not read the criticism over there. I'd tell you which ones but right now it is unclear to me if I'm even allowed to say. Dispairaiging remarks like No need to point people to WPO to hear ten blocked trolls give their opinions on it. aren't helpful. I seem to recall you saying at some point that you have never actually read anything over there, so it's hard to understand how you formed your opinions. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree there are aspects of this that are outside of the committee's remit, but one thing that is for sure inside of it is the question of "emailing the evidence to the committee." If there is evidence over there that, say, an admin is blocking users for invalid reasons at the urging of others over there, and going back to laugh about it with them, that would obviously be an issue for the committee. That isn't what we just saw at RFA. I feel like "I told ArbCom" was in this case meant as a shield, to allow the user to say they had infomred the proper authorities of the supposed wrongdoing, when the wrongdoing amounted to "they have an account and have made a very small number of completely non-objectionable posts." What was emailing the committee meant to accomplish? What, if anything, did it accomplish? What, if any, was the committee's reply? Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how many times I need to explain that collective guilt is generally believed to be a bad thing. Let's just reverse this scenario: If I comment on an ArbCom case, and later the committee makes a profoundly stupid decision, is that my fault? Obviosuly not. Am I obligated to explicitly call it out and distance myself from it even though I had nothing to do with it? Of course not. Ignoring it as having nothing to do with me is a valid option. WPO is no more a monolith hive mind that WP is, opinions differ on a wide variety of topics. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we're certainly seeing new levels of crazy here, calling people "traitors" for posting there and saying Editors need to make a choice between their loyalty to Wikipedia and its editors versus their social life elsewhere. is pretty wild. You can't be critical of Wikipedia content or contributors or you're a traitor, choose a side. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I think it would be very interesting to hear ArbCom opinions on this question. In part, this issue comes up in the context of the 2024 RfA reform discussions heading in the direction of wanting accusations of wrongdoing against RfA candidates to be backed up with specific evidence, and the question comes up of how to provide specific evidence when it cannot be posted onsite. Does ArbCom want editors to submit such evidence about RfA candidates to ArbCom, and if so, can ArbCom respond to the evidence in a way that is sufficiently timely to be useful for RfA? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a lot of subtopics within the discussion here, but something I hope ArbCom members will come back to is about the applicability of this to situations where the issue comes up during an RfA. Perhaps in some future RfA, an Esotrix-type issue will be raised (but without ArbCom having been alerted to it prior to the RfA), and editors will want to know if the editor making the accusation should present the evidence privately to ArbCom. Obviously, such evidence cannot be published on the RfA page, and the community is currently doing a lot of discussion about when it might be disruptive to make accusations about RfA candidates without sufficient evidence. So I'd be interested in any opinions about:
  1. Does ArbCom want such evidence pertaining to an RfA sent to ArbCom?
  2. If so, can ArbCom deal with the evidence and post a public response quickly enough to fit within the RfA timeframe?
  3. And if not, does ArbCom want to point the community towards some other way of processing such accusations?
--Tryptofish (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

I have lots of thoughts, but they boil down to: we will not link to (or obliquely mention) any thread with outing/doxxing; consider whether it is accessible to the public so it can be verified; and consider whether the WP user has linked themselves to the off-wiki account. If any of the 3 tests fail, then you can't bring it up at RFA (or anywhere else at WP). Sorry, the world is imperfect. Based on this, you would very often be able to discuss a Discord discussion, and very often not be able to discuss a WO discussion, but with exceptions in both cases. It seems like further details on this aren't useful until and unless I become God Emperor of WP, and can just implement it, but I can expand if someone wants. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

I see this as a matter for the community, rather than ARBCOM. To me the heart of the matter is if, and how, we can discuss Wikipedia editors' off-wiki activities. ARBCOM has a role to play when off-wiki conduct impinges on on-wiki matters enough; typically, for harassment, collusion, or other disruption of our core purpose. The off-wiki conduct that has become a matter of discussion at RFA is very different: it isn't a violation of any of our PAGs, it is just behavior some editors find objectionable in an RFA candidate. We treat the off-wiki lives of our editors as private, and rightfully so. Discord and WPO are weird, in that they are strictly off-wiki fora populated by a large number of Wikipedians in good standing. I don't think it's an unreasonable position to take that behavior there shouldn't be immune to on-wiki scrutiny if it becomes relevant to on-wiki matters; I also don't think it's unreasonable to say that what happens off-wiki should stay there until and unless our PAGs are being violated, and then it needs to go to ARBCOM. But that's an area in which current policy seems to not cover all the contingencies, and the community needs to grapple with that. I don't see how a comment like this is useful to send to ARBCOM, or what ARBCOM could do if it was; but we're clearly unsettled as a community that it was posted, and we need to figure out guidelines for it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Joe Roe

I agree that some clarification from the committee on these matters would be helpful. This isn't entirely up to them—for example, the ban on discussing Discord discussions is the result of a community RfC and it would be inappropriate to modify it either way here—but ArbCom has historically played a role in making editors feel generally uncomfortable about linking to things off-wiki. More specifically, a 2007 remedy pronouncing that quoting private correspondence is a copyright violation is still on the books and still cited in WP:EMAILPOST. Does the current committee agree with this interpretation?

In addition, ArbCom has a responsibility to regulate the oversight team, and I've had a feeling for a long time now that they been enforce an extremely broad understanding of what constitutes "outing" that is not necessarily reflective of broader community opinion. Some direction there could also be very helpful: OS is used as "tool of first resort", or so the mantra goes, but we shouldn't underestimate how chilling it is to have an edit suppressed. – Joe (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aoidh makes a good point below about current policy (WP:OUTING) requiring disclosure of personal information on Wikipedia before it can be discussed. There are two pivot points there: where the disclosure should happen, but also whether profiles on external sites, and by extension posts associated with those profiles, can reasonably be considered "personal information". For me it's the latter that is the problem here; the former is a good rule when applied to genuine personal information. Interestingly, it's also a relatively recent addition to the harassment policy,[5][6] following this discussion in December 2020. The reason given for the addition was to bring the policy in line with the practice of oversighters, which rather speaks to my point of the OS team pushing things in a more conservative direction, not necessarily the community as a whole. – Joe (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Moneytrees and Barkeep49: The "copyright email" correspondence is cited in WP:EMAILPOST, albeit in a roundabout way. I think it would be helpful for the committee to formally retract that remedy, even if it won't change things immediately, just to remove the spectre of that particular armchair lawyer from subsequent discussions. As Barkeep also alludes to, a lot of the appearance of support for these rules comes not from people really reflecting on the core issue, but transferring a (faulty) logic originally applied to emails to IRC, and then from IRC to Discord, and so on. If the sender of an email wants to control what happens to it, they can do so completely: by not sending it. If the operator of a Discord channel wants to control what happens to the logs, they can do so completely: by not making them public. But what we're talking about here is material that has already been published on the internet. It is not private and never will be again. All we achieve by trying to put the cat back in the bag is to create a charade where we have to pretend not to be able to see messages that we can all see, not to know things that we all know, and not to talk about things that we can all talk about elsewhere. Nobody's privacy is protected, it just makes it easier for editors who behave badly off-wiki to evade accountability, and makes good-faith editors look like idiots because they're not allowed to provide evidence for the opinions they've formed based on off-wiki activity.
  • @CaptainEek: What is ArbCom supposed to do with it, though? The precipitating incident here is an RfA where there was opposition based on the candidates activity on Discord and Wikipediocracy (so no it's not just about WPO). The opposers (including me) could not point to specific incidents, because of the rules discussed here which, at least in part, stem from a prior ArbCom remedy on from the practice of the oversight team. How would emailing ArbCom help there? And in general, what role is ArbCom supposed to play when the off-wiki material that people want to discuss is relevant to on-wiki activities, but doesn't rise to the level of something needing ArbCom intervention?
  • And to nobody in particular, I do think it would aid transparency if committee members who are active on the off-wiki forums we're discussing here disclose it when voting or offering an opinion. – Joe (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ferret

I'd like an opinion on this as well, not necessarily just for RFA. Specific to WP:Discord, I !voted in the Discord RFC to restrict copying and linking Discord messages. I did so based on my reading of OUTING, HARASSMENT, and the community expectations of IRC logs, rather than strictly what I'd prefer. That consideration included what Joe references about the copyright concern of "private" messages, which seems to be part of the long standing rationale around IRC messages. I've also seen several times people suggest that OUTING goes as far as covering someone outing themselves on another Wikimedia project (i.e. a user page on eswiki), meaning that's not good enough to mention here on English Wikipedia. Prior to SUL, that may well have been, but SUL is long done. So what I'm really driving at is: Where is the line on identifying yourself sufficiently to be mentioned on site? Particular to the Discord, we have OAuth integration through an open source bot hosted on WMF resources. Is this enough to count as self-disclosure? Or does the connection to Discord have to be on-site (i.e. a userbox or otherwise)? Revisiting the Discord RFC is on the community, but some of these questions, such as EMAILPOST and how OS will act, are at least partially under Arbcom as Joe notes. -- ferret (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 Thanks. I have heard this said (Re: disclosure on other Wikimedia projects) repeatedly, but I did not know where it might actually be stated. -- ferret (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

Regarding Ferret's comments regarding disclosures on other SUL wikis. I have a vague recollection that this was discussed previously, but I don't remember where. I don't think a single hard and fast rule can be applied to that, but it's a matter of how reasonable it is to expect en.wp editors to be aware of the disclosure. For example if you make a disclosure on another wiki and you prominently link to that page from your userpage here, that should count as disclosing it here. If you disclose something on your e.g. eswiki userpage and make it clear on your userpage here that you contribute to eswiki, then again it's reasonable to take that as having been disclosed to the English Wikipedia. However, if you state something on the e.g. Russian wikisource's equivalent of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, and don't link to that page here, then it has not been disclosed to the English Wikipedia. Obviously there will be many things in between the extremes that can only be decided on a case-by-case basis. However, unless you are sure it has been intentionally or obviously disclosed somewhere it is reasonable to expect English Wikipedia editors to be aware of, then assume it has not been disclosed. Thryduulf (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 so basically what I said just more clearly and a lot more concisely! Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe: there are two issues with connecting accounts elsewhere. The first is ensuring that connections are actually correct, i.e. User X here is the same person as user X elsewhere - even sharing relatively unusual names like Thryduulf is not a guarantee (I remember finding a user Thryduulf that was nothing to do with me a few years ago, user:Thrydwulf is nothing to do with me). The second issue is that editors have a reasonable expectation of privacy and are allowed to choose to disclose things in other communities that they do not want to disclose here. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst: Oversight did not ignore you. Primefac replied to you (Arbs and OSers it was ticket #2024060810000607) explaining that they saw no outing issues and thus nothing for the OS team to do because the editor concerned has made an on-wiki connection between WO and WP. Based on what you've written here it seems that the reason for your request was misunderstood, but you should have replied noting that. As far as the oversight team was aware you were OK with the outcome. Thryduulf (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by hako

I think the community wants to have pretty firm protections against doxxing I'd like the committee to make an explicit distinction between persons involved in the act of doxxing (or say vote canvassing or any other misconduct) on third-party sites, and persons who participate on those sites but are not abettors. It's futile to overreach and police what editors do and say outside wikipedia. Hypothetically speaking, I can say whatever I want on any third party site with a fictitious name, without any possibility of repercussion on my activity on wikipedia. Arbcom should act exclusively on cases where they find evidence of misconduct by an editor off-wiki without attaching any vicarious liability to other participants on that off-wiki platform. — hako9 (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich JSS/Beebs, you posted in that same thread over there six times since that post was made, and not a single word about this very open threat. What is JSS supposed to do? Chide Vigilant aggressively so that they stop doxxing? As if that would work? The doxxing is going to happen whether editors here participate there or not. — hako9 (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jclemens

CaptainEek Statements like there is never a situation that calls for linking to or discussing a Wikipediocracy thread are problematic. Are you suggesting that if I were to discuss my resignation of the tools in late 2013, a Wikipediocracy post--that persists to this day in somewhat redacted form--doxxing me and listing my employer's name and phone number and my home address and phone number (that were redacted so quickly by WPO leadership I couldn't confirm their accuracy) and several other identifying bits of information would be off limits for me to bring up to discuss the circumstances of my tools resignation? I'd like to think that, as the person doxxed, it is my prerogative to mention, discuss, or even link to such a thread, and the clear sense of WP:OUTING is that such linkage would be permitted if done by me. (For the record, none of the information is particularly threatening to me 10 1/2 years later. Those overly interested can Google my current employer and discover why.) Jclemens (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the first things I did after learning about it was searching my own name on there; boy was that a bad decision. CaptainEek, you highlight one of the ongoing negatives of Wikipediocracy: regulars there have a love/hate, but mostly hate, relationship with Wikipedia administrators that can have a demoralizing effect on Wikipedia editors. While I would also not recommend any admin or outspoken user search the site for their username, once having done so, it can be instructive to see how particular actions are discussed. In at least one case, only after being pointed to Wikipediocracy and reading the relevant thread did I understand the opposition to a stance I took. So while linking to criticism of another editor may well remain off limits, each mentioned editor should be made aware of the potential to review critics' unfiltered thoughts at the site. Jclemens (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

A couple of days ago on WPO, Vigilant, the WPO user who most often doxes Wikipedia editors and openly threatens to continue doing so, wrote, in response to Eek's comments here, "Sounds like Eek needs an exposé" (link omitted). JSS/Beebs, you posted in that same thread over there six times since that post was made, and not a single word about this very open threat. Here, your third post is "Dispairaiging remarks like 'No need to point people to WPO to hear ten blocked trolls give their opinions on it.' aren't helpful." That's pretty bad: you take the time to criticize someone for criticizing WPO, but you don't criticize WPO for threatening to 'expose' editors.

(Also, Beebs, give up the "but they read it!" line of argument. Of course people who criticize WPO read it. Just like people on WPO read Wikipedia even though they criticize Wikipedia. This is not the "gotcha" that you seem to think it is: if people didn't criticize things they read, or didn't read the things they criticize, there would no criticism at all. Perhaps that's what you want?)

So w/r/t JSS's comment in the OP that "this has the potential to create a chilling effect where users will be afraid to post anything at all on off-wiki criticism sites," that chilling effect is good and we want that. Just like WPO is trying to create a chilling effect on Wikipedia by threatening to dox editors they disagree with, Wikipedia should create a chilling effect, or a taboo, about participating in off-wiki websites that dox editors, even if those websites refer to themselves as "criticism sites." There are other reasons not to have a blanket prohibition on linking or referring to another website (one of those reasons is so we can call people out for their wikipediocracy hypocrisy, as I am doing here), but "chilling effect" ain't it. Levivich (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JPxG

While I think the idea of prohibiting mention of the ignominious badsites and offsites was done with the best of intentions, it seems to very obviously and directly facilitate and enable any manner of bad behavior. In general, the way it ends up working in practice is something like:

  • There is some RfC onwiki about whatever subject.
  • Somebody (whether an editor here or not) makes a thread on WPO called "Giant Morons Trying To Ruin Everything By Voting For Option 2".
  • Nobody can bring up the existence of this thread, because it is an unmentionable badsite.
  • For some mysterious reason that nobody could possibly fathom, the RfC has 500% more participation than usual, and is uncharacteristically nasty.
  • We all have to just sit there and grit our teeth at this skulduggery.

Here is another example:

  • Someone on WPO makes a thread gratuitously insulting a Wikipedia user, in which all sorts of unbelievably nasty things are said about them, possibly under their real name.
  • Nobody can mention or link to this thread, because it is an unmentionable badsite.
  • Someone says: "Uh, well, nobody has any evidence that WPO ever did anything wrong, you know it's just a myth".
  • We all have to just sit there and grit our teeth at this skulduggery.

Another:

  • Somebody signs up for a WPO account to respond to a thread about them, or to correct a misunderstanding, or something along these lines, and their posts are 100% anodyne and unobjectionable.
  • Nobody can link to the posts, or mention what they actually said, because it is an unmentionable badsite.
  • Someone says: "Uh, well, I could NEVER trust someone who hangs out on WPO, you know they dox people there".
  • We all have to just sit there and grit our teeth at this skulduggery.

Whatever the reasoning was behind this omerta stuff, it seems in practice to have almost entirely bad implications -- it certainly doesn't stop people from going to WPO and doing whatever they want (trash-talking other editors, getting out the vote for RfCs/AfDs/etc, weird mafioso larping) -- the only thing it actually stops is us talking about it or doing something about it.

Contrariwise, this isn't even much of a benefit for WPO -- people onwiki are also completely free to just say stuff with no evidence because "well I can't link to it or tell anybody what it is". jp×g🗯️ 03:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if there's any way for me to mention this site and avoid the inevitable dual-front pissing and moaning where somebody on here accuses me of being pro-WPO and threatens to drag me to whatever, while simultaneously somebody on WPO accuses me of being anti-WPO while posting a thread under my real name in the public section of the forum and also claims that it's not doxing because if you spend a half-hour digging through my contributions you can see that my username was originally my real name -- well, whatever man, can I at least get a T-shirt? jp×g🗯️ 03:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While we are on the subject, the idea that single-sentence quotations of offsite communications need to be removed as copyright violations is just completely false as far as I can tell -- there is literally no other part of Wikipedia where we make the ridiculous claim that quoting with attribution one sentence from a published work is a copyvio. It's one thing if we want to have a rule against it, but it would be better to do so without unnecessarily lying about how copyright law works, and if we actually do this in policy anywhere it should really be fixed for the sake of avoiding embarrassment. jp×g🗯️ 03:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: If it's possible to clarify that we are allowed to discuss offsite happenings, I think this would be a big improvement. Currently, if I link to a Wikipediocracy thread, I do so by ignoring what people have told me the rules are; the examples I give are meant as a rejoinder to "there is never a situation that calls for linking to or discussing a Wikipediocracy thread".
@Just Step Sideways: I think this thing about "collective punishment" doesn't make a whole lot of sense -- I agree that it would be dumb to block somebody simply because they hang out on the daily with a strange stalker online, and you clearly do not exert control over the dox guy. At the same time, though, isn't it kind of straightforward why people would dislike when you show up to a thread on WPO where someone is being harassed, and then make posts in the thread to say negative things about them? jp×g🗯️ 04:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst: So your preference is, when a discussion is canvassed from an external site, that we are forbidden to mention or acknowledge it? jp×g🗯️ 17:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valjean

As the victim of doxxing (and threats of same) and nasty, uncivil, and snide criticism on the named off-wiki website by at least one admin (who should lose their tools) and a few fringe(*) editors here, the comment by @Just Step Sideways: is very ironic. (* "Fringe" is defined as editors who get their POV from unreliable sources and edit and discuss accordingly here.) Just Step Sideways writes:

"I feel like this has the potantial to create a chilling effect where users will be afraid to post anything at all on off-wiki criticism sites,.."

Whatever happened to the matter of far more importance to Wikipedia, and that is the chilling effect HERE created by those nasty off-wiki comments from other editors who should be considered good-faith colleagues here? How can one edit and discuss around such editors and ever feel safe again? The "enjoyment of editing" here is totally undermined by them. Trust has been violated. The chilling effect is enormous and constant, and one lives under a cloud of pressure from their illicit and bad faith stalking and harassment. I know this will immediately be reported there by traitors from here, but it needs to be said.

Editors need to be protected, and their enjoyment of editing here should not be threatened by uncollegial criticism, snide comments, and threats of doxxing elsewhere. It invites even worse behavior from bad actors who may not even be editors here. It's a dog whistle. Editors need to make a choice between their loyalty to Wikipedia and its editors versus their social life elsewhere. Keep a wall between them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to @Levivich:, @Vanamonde93:, and @JPxG: for your insights. You seem to understand the problem. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite

Puzzling that Beebs would feel the need to poke a stick into a beehive. This is not an Arb matter, if anything it is a community matter, and it's really not that. Criticism websites have existed almost as long as there has been a Wikipedia and over these 15+ years, people have a pretty good implied understanding of what is in and what is out. Mentions are one thing, links maybe another. In any event, it strikes me as dumb to overgeneralize about a message board as it is to overgeneralize about Wikipedia — projecting its worst foibles as in some way representative of the whole. This is clearly a No Action sort of request, methinks, and good for that. For those of you who demonize WPO, pop over and have a beer with us sometime, we don't bite very hard. —tim /// Carrite (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Jclemens - >>While I would also not recommend any admin or outspoken user search the site for their username, once having done so, it can be instructive to see how particular actions are discussed. In at least one case, only after being pointed to Wikipediocracy and reading the relevant thread did I understand the opposition to a stance I took. So while linking to criticism of another editor may well remain off limits, each mentioned editor should be made aware of the potential to review critics' unfiltered thoughts at the site. — This pretty much gets to the heart of things. It's a criticism site, by definition. If one is above criticism or if one never makes mistakes or if one believes that Wikipedia is flawless and problemless — back off, stay away, there is nothing to see because you have nothing to learn. If you want to partake of slightly-filtered criticism, to have issues raised in an aggressive manner under a spotlight, venture forth if you desire. At its best, WPO is to Wikipedia as Sixty Minutes is to government agencies. The mission is not "to out and harass." Carrite (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Levivich - Do not necessarily conclude that the lack of publicly-viewable criticism of a WPO poster's material means there is nothing happening backstage. WPO has a Direct Messages system and there are behavioral requests made there periodically which will never show up in a thread. Don't make the mistake of calling out inaction until you know there was actually no action. Carrite (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mangoe

We rejected this back in 2007. Could we please stop trying to sneak it back in? Mangoe (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lightburst

Recently an administrator in an AfD linked to WPO as an argument for their !vote in AfD. I notified the administrator who posted this link that there are personal attacks about me in the thread. The admin ignored my concern. I notified arbcom multiple times and they ignored me. I notified oversight and they ignored me. So it appears to me that we are selective in who we protect here on the project. Me, not so much, the RFA candidate? Yes. I am especially disappointed in Barkeep49 and the arbcom crew for their complete lack of attention to this issue. When it is against policy to use PAs but it is ok to link to an outside site that allows PAs we have a reason to be concerned.

The AfD was clearly canvassed at WPO and editors came to Wikipedia en-masse to ignore our guidelines and policies so they could remove the article. That canvassing is a separate issue but certainly tied to the same issue. Listen it is creepy having this anti-wikipedia site linked to us like a sister project. It is even creepier that some admins are enthusiastic supporters and participants at WPO. Lightburst (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: Are there other ways to report or deal with canvassing? I am likely in the minority based on the inaction of all. It seems this discussion is about linking to off-wiki, and the collective yawn from those in positions of power might give you your answer. Lightburst (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Thanks for the message. I see a few messages in my junk mail. After reading them, the fact remains: all concerned did nothing to remove the link. The link to off-wiki PAs is still there in the AfD. This seems like a work around for leveling PAs, i.e. join WPO, disparage a Wikipedia editor and then link to it on Wikipedia. I am definitely not OK with linking to off-wiki sites like WPO. Lightburst (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by isaacl

Regarding copyright of email: as I've discussed previously, the real issue is privacy, and not copyright. Copyright doesn't prevent paraphrasing, and is about protecting the author's rights to profit from their work. What the Wikipedia community can do to try to enforce expectations of privacy in email (either implicit or explicit) is limited. isaacl (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darkfrog24

The state of things is that Wikipedia is an important website, and over the decades it's become a serious website. People may want to act and speak differently here than they do in less formal settings like Discord. The dress code at the office need not apply to the sidewalk. It can also be a frustrating website, and adopting a general policy of "Do what you like but don't do it here. Oh, you're already not doing it here? Okay we're good then" is probably the healthy response. We do have some precedent for sanctioning people for off-wiki actions, such as WP:MEATPUPPET, deliberately recruiting participants to affect on-Wiki events. But they've been pretty limited and pretty strictly defined. So while possibly sanctioning someone who harasses another Wikipedian for reasons directly related to Wikipedia might be appropriate, I've been very glad of WP:OUTING's strict take over the years.

Here I was saying to myself, "I can't think of any good reason someone would link to an off-Wiki thread that includes outing," and then JPxG gives us three. I still favor the strict protection of WP:OUTING, but now I know where the tradeoff is. This is a balance we strike and not a freebie that costs us nothing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

mentioning the name of off-wiki threads: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

mentioning the name of off-wiki threads: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Thanks for raising this issue JSS. As the OS who did the noticeboard suppression which named a thread, your facts aren't quite right there, but I don't think that takes away from the larger point you're raising. And it's one I admit to some discomfort with in an RfA context. As it stands I think the community wants to have pretty firm protections against doxxing. I also think the community would care about certain off-wiki activities. For instance, if User:Foo had lost Stewardship due to abuse on Miraheze/WikiTide there would be no cause for any action here, but I think the community would want to consider that information before passing someone at RfA. So don't have any answers (yet) but wanted to acknowledge some thoughts I had as I wait to see what other editors and arbs say. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf the wording about other projects is found in note 1 of the harassment policy. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @JPxG: your 3 situations confuse me. At the moment I'm not aware of anyone taking administrative action against scenario 1. Am I wrong here? For situation 2, it feels like whether or not "possibly under their real name" happens will matter a huge amount. If there's not a real name, I'm not aware of practice/procedure to suggestion action against (as with scenario 1). If there is a real name that has not been revealed under policy, it would seem to be eligible for oversighting. Are you suggesting that WPO be exempt from Oversighting in this scenario? And I don't understand what you're suggesting is the real impact of scenario 3. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    JPxG, thanks that's helpful in explaining things. No arb - not even CaptainEek who has spoken out the most strongly against WPO - is saying you can't ever link (let along mention) WPO and we both know WP:BADSITES is a failed proposal. However, if a link reasonably serves to harass someone the link would be inappropriate and writing a comment that includes such a link could be a conduct issue (depending on other factors). If the link reasonably serves to doxx someone (which is one form of harassment), it would make the comment with the link eligible for overisghting. The odds are higher that a link to WPO is a form of harassment than a link to say reddit (as another forum based community), but even that doesn't mean linking to most threads at WPO would be harassment. Most threads at WPO not having harassment also doesn't mean that a link couldn't have been harmless when posted, but turns into harassment (though no fault of the person posting) after the fact because there is subsequently outing that could reasonably be found by clicking on the link. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to take more time to look into this so I can make a more informed opinion, but wanted to note that I am paying close attention to this and appreciate the statements given so far. I think it's important to note that the current wording of WP:OUTING requires self-disclosure on Wikipedia in order for the disclosure of off-wiki profiles to not constitute outing, and I think it's important to view these issues through that lens unless and until that policy is amended. - Aoidh (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do think this is something that the community as a whole needs to address, as these effect fundamental policies. If there are aspects that only ArbCom can address then we should do so, but the broad discussion is something the community should shape and change as needed. @Just Step Sideways: emailing ArbCom and saying that you did so on Wikipedia should not in and of itself carry any weight whatsoever, and doing this should not protect that editor from the consequences of their actions on Wikipedia or negate their responsibilities as an editor (WP:CIVILITY, WP:OUTING, etc.). @Joe Roe: there is a userbox disclosing the fact that I am on the Wikimedia Community Discord server. I am also on a few English Wikipedia-related IRC channels. Outside of that, I do not and to the best of my knowledge have never posted on any Wikipedia-focused off-wiki forum or made any comments about Wikipedia on any off-wiki forum. - Aoidh (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a lot of thoughts about this but might take some time to make them digestible. One thing though, I agree with you @Joe that the "copyright" justification for not posting emails is pretty dubious, at least in a modern Wikipedia context, and I know at least one other Arb felt a similar way last year. That said, I think it's reasonable to prohibit the posting of emails (or at least discourage it), and WP:EMAILPOST doesn't actually cite the "copyright" portion of the remedy~-- so I'm not actually sure if it's something that needs to be amended? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if I'm the arb mentioned (could be!), but there was a reason in the Discord RfC mentioned above that I said it and IRC should be treated equally. I think there's a fairly reasonable case that channel/server operators should be able to decide if logs can be posted onwiki or not and for that decision to be respected onwiki. Further the copyright justification (as opposed to just straight up "Wikipedians are concerned about privacy and this is one way we choose to protect it) for OS'ing off-wiki stuff has always felt weak to me. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a lot of beating around the bush here, but it seems clear that the real issue here is Wikipediocracy. I do not recommend participation in WPO even as a "good guy" (the classic adage about wrestling with pigs applies). It has gotten more people into more drama than highschool theatre.
    With that said, there are two possible situations involving off-wiki content: 1) the content relies entirely on on-wiki evidence, but collates/comments on/brings to light the issue; or 2) the content relies on off-wiki/private evidence. In case of situation 1, if the underlying diffs could be posted on wiki without say outing someone, then just post the underlying diffs. No need to point people to WPO to hear ten blocked trolls give their opinions on it. Its not that you're forbidden from discussing the nonsense at WPO, but its not recommended and can in fact be avoided. In the case of situation 2, you shouldn't be posting that on-wiki, because you're linking to content that wouldn't be okay on-wiki, like doxxing. Alluding to it is not an improvement in my book, because then you're just casting aspersions. Instead, it should get emailed to ArbCom, who can take action as necessary. The moral is that there is never a situation that calls for linking to or discussing a Wikipediocracy thread. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Jclemens raises a good point about a situation I hadn't considered. If a person wants to acknowledge their own doxxing, they are free to do so, though it's again something I don't recommend. I agree that "never" is a bit hyperbolic, but my point with that phrase was not to say that it was verboten, but rather that it wasn't a wise choice. I stand by the idea that Its not that you're forbidden from discussing the nonsense at WPO, but its not recommended and can in fact be avoided. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To extend on that idea and reply in part to Joe, I understand that this has been brought forward as a line drawing exercise. The community wants to know how close to the line it can get on linking this kind of stuff. My suggestion is that's the wrong inquiry. I go out of my way to avoid having to discuss WPO, because I find it a problematic and unhelpful site and think that referencing it feeds the trolls. If you don't share my opinion, than I understand how you might find my advice not helpful at resolving the underlying issue here. I stand by my aversion to WPO though; one of the best pieces of advice I have received was to never get a WPO account (and to any newer editors reading, please, avoid WPO. It will only do you harm).
    To reply to JSS, I have read WPO threads; it's an unpleasant experience. One of the first things I did after learning about it was searching my own name on there; boy was that a bad decision. Still, having to read WPO threads is an occasional part of Arb business. Thus I stand by my blocked trolls comment, the power posters at WPO include a lot of our nastiest trolls. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In furtherance of the line drawing exercise, I suggest that perhaps ArbCom isn't the one to answer that question. I think the issue is that the recent RfA reforms and our harassment/doxxing policy are slightly at odds. The community has expressed a very strong desire to not have doxxing material on-wiki. But it has also expressed it wants detailed reasonings for oppose votes at RfA. Those two aspects have come into conflict with one another, and absent further input from the community, we are continuing to lean on the side of caution. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the feedback and discussion among the community (and arbs) so far. I am inclined to say that the community will need to reconcile its wishes. In particular it's up to the community to decide how it wants to reconcile OUTING and the new expectations at RfA and whether or not it wants to review past decisions about DISCORD/IRC/EMAIL (Joe Roe rightly points out that some of this sprung from arbcom interpretations, but as I think it has been adopted and expanded by the community it's not for ArbCom to say one way or another anymore as that would be a policy change). As it stands I agree with Floquenbeam's analysis when it comes to RfA: we will not link to (or obliquely mention) any thread with outing/doxxing; consider whether it is accessible to the public so it can be verified; and consider whether the WP user has linked themselves to the off-wiki account. If any of the 3 tests fail, then you can't bring it up at RFA. However, I do agree with Joe and others that the Committee has some role to play, though I would prefer to share that role with the broader Oversight team. With OS, I find that 98% or so of the OS requests are clear yes or clear no under policy and require little thought on my part to action. It's the remaining 2% where the OS team should work to have consistency (I think ArbCom should set the expectation that there be less variation in OS response than in other admin areas, including CU). In the noticeboard example that JSS gives, this fell in that 2% which is why I consulted with someone else before taking action. Beyond this, there has been a lot of discussion about WPO of which I have a number of opinions about but is also not a unique use case when it comes to mentioning/linking to off-wiki threads/discussions which I see as the matter before us and thus doesn't need any special analysis beyond what I've written above. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My conclusions are formed after reading the above, but not the pertaining information at WPO. I do not take an absolutist "never link WPO" approach; there could be some valid reasons to link to an off-wiki site. However, it is the responsibility of the person linking the thread to ensure that OUTING does not happen. This means that, before posting a link on-wiki, the editor needs to review all the material on the page to ensure that the outing doesn't happen. For this circumstance, there are options like emailing ArbCom to ensure OUTING does not take place. I would like to see community consultations about how OUTING should be applied, as this is becoming a common topic at ARBCOM and might need an update. My own personal opinion to editors who are reading WPO: your time is probably better spent improving an article on Wikipedia, or having the conversation on-wiki. I'm not sure there are any motions that will arise from this, but I'm happy to answer any questions if pinged. Z1720 (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To answer "More specifically, a 2007 remedy pronouncing that quoting private correspondence is a copyright violation is still on the books and still cited in WP:EMAILPOST. Does the current committee agree with this interpretation?", I personally do not find the copyright argument that has been en vogue for about 20 years about publishing emails to be convincing. I probably need to look at the literature again, but I do not know of any case law where the copyright claim was successful. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions

Initiated by EggRoll97 at 03:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:


Statement by EggRoll97

Multiple pages protected under contentious topics procedures this year alone (see WP:AEL#Armenia-Azerbaijan_(CT/A-A) for just a sample) have been protected under arbitration enforcement but have no editnotice or other restriction notice applied to the page. This is despite a line recurring in contentious topics procedures pages being, in part, When a page has active page restrictions, the following template must be used as an editnotice, and the contentious topics procedures page itself stating that an editnotice is required prior to blocking an editor for a violation, even if they are aware of contentious topics procedures, with the language of However, breaches of a page restriction may result in a block or editor restriction only if: The editor was aware that they were editing in a contentious topic, and The restricted page displayed an editnotice ({{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} or a derived topic-specific template) specifying the page restriction.

Because of this, I ask for clarification as to whether these editnotices can be added to pages by any editor if the enforcing administrator has not done so, or whether they may only be added by the administrator who has applied the page restriction.

ToBeFree Based on your statement, would I be correct in assuming there would be no problem (procedurally-wise?), if, for example, I went through the list of pages logged as "indef ECP" or similar in the enforcement log, and added topic-specific editnotices to them? While I've seen some commentary below about the efficacy of these editnotices, I personally find it helpful to have these types of editnotices present on pages just for the purposes of having a big banner to tell me a certain page is applicable to CTOP. EggRoll97 (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

The edit notice can be added by editors with the page mover permission. Idk whether the idea of CT was to do away with this requirement but I don't think it did so in my usual area (AI/IP), the Arbpia edit notice (and talk page notice which can be added by any editor) is needed in general.Selfstudier (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

Editnotices can be created by administrators, page movers, and template editors. If an editnotice exists, most editors can edit it, and I'd support non-admins rectifying clerical errors wherever possible. Speaking of which, if someone wants to collect some pages that need editnotices, I'm happy to cross a bunch of them off the list.

Arbs, I'd suggest that common practice has moved away from such editnotices being necessary. Between admins forgetting, banner blindness, and mobile editors not seeing them at all, I don't think the notices are meaningful in generating awareness of the restriction. Enforcement of restrictions these days tends to be dependent on both formal CTOP awareness and a request to self-revert being ignored or declined, meaning a few other checks are in place to avoid unwarranted sanctions. Would the committee consider changing this requirement to a recommendation? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Contentious topics restrictions: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Contentious topics restrictions: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • My read of the procedures is that edit notices are not required when an entire topic area is under a particular restriction (e.g. 1RR) or if an individual administrator changes the protection level under the CT procedures. They are required id an individual administrator places a page restriction (other than protection) on an individual page. The key phrasing is, for me, An administrator who imposes a page restriction (other than page protection) must add an editnotice to restricted pages using the standard template ({{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} or a derived topic-specific template), and should generally add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.(formatting removed). Barkeep49 (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main purpose of these edit notices, to me, is informing users about a restriction so they can adhere to it. This is not needed for page protection; MediaWiki both displays details about the protection and prevents restriction violations at the same time. The protection text already contains the needed information (Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Logging). All users automatically adhere to page protections, which is probably why Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Restriction notices explicitly exempts them from the editnotice requirement.
    Topic-wide restrictions such as the extended-confirmed restriction can be enforced with blocks as long as a user is (formally) aware of the restriction; edit notices are not required for the imposition or enforcement of topic-wide restrictions. A user restricted from editing about weather must not edit about weather, and they may be blocked to prevent them from continuing to do so even if the affected pages didn't display a huge "this is a weather-related page" edit notice above them.
    This makes the actual question less relevant than EggRoll97 may have thought, but the answer is that {{Contentious topics/editnotice}}, which explains topic-wide restrictions, may be added by anyone technically able to do so, and {{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} is for use by administrators who impose a different page restriction than page protection. It will rarely be missing where it is actually required, but it if is actually clearly missing somewhere, I'd recommend simply asking the enforcing administrator to fix the issue. The existence of a page restriction (other than page protection) begins with the creation of the edit notice to my understanding, so failing to place the edit notice doesn't do the action incorrectly, it simply fails to take action at all. This is why, to me, page restrictions other than page protection can't be "fixed" by anyone else. They simply don't exist. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    EggRoll97, I think adding {{Contentious topics/editnotice|XYZ}} as an edit notice to pages clearly fully related to XYZ would be helpful, even if no protection has happened yet.
    Adding {{Contentious topics/editnotice|...|section=yes}} as an edit notice to pages related to XYZ closely enough to justify an existing CTOP page protection would also be helpful.
    There's an exception though: I wouldn't add {{Contentious topics/editnotice|blp}} to BLPs, as being in Category:Living people already causes {{BLP editnotice}} to appear. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To answer whether these editnotices can be added to pages by any editor if the enforcing administrator has not done so, yes; adding an edit notice where one is missing is something anyone (with the correct permissions) is able to do. Primefac (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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
  1. 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.
  2. 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
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: [7]). 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 [8]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • @Aquillion. A simple warning to me during the case would be sufficient. I was very much willing to listen what arbitrators have to say: [9] (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)[reply]
  • @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 [10],[11]. 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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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 1 arbitrator abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. 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)[reply]
  2. 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)[reply]
  3. 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)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
  1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrator discussion

Motions

Requests for enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
Arbitration enforcement archives
1234567891011121314151617181920
2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
321322323324325326327328329330331332333334

Monopoly31121993(2)

Monopoly31121993(2) is indefinitely topic banned from the Arab/Israel conflict, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Monopoly31121993(2)

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Selfstudier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Monopoly31121993(2) (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
Arbpia 4
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 20:11, 23 June 2024 WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NOTHERE
  2. 20:51, 23 June 2024 WP:CANVASSING and WP:BATTLEGROUND


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)

15:26, 19 November 2023 (see the system log linked to above).


Additional comments by editor filing complaint

6 April 2024 Further evidence of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Here


Discussion concerning Monopoly31121993(2)

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 Monopoly31121993(2)

I apologize if I offended anyone. summary of events: In this specific case, I saw that a wikipedia page for Gaza Genocide was about to be created (via a renaming process) and thought that was revisionist to an extreme. I mentioned that this was similar to when editors (some of whom are involved again now) declared the Gaza Stripe Famine several months ago. I saw that this article name change was being done despite having failed multiple time in the past after months of attempts and that this latest attempt began by pinging a certain list of editors (who they were, I don't know). I responded by pinging editors who had recently contributed to discussion about deleting or merging another Israel-Palestine article. I didn't discriminate or cherry-pick editors, I just pinged 50 of the most recent editors to see if they wanted to contribute.

I also made a statement, that I am very concerned that Wikipedia's neutrality is rapidly evaporating on the topic of Israel-Palestine. Instead I saw and see activism, attempts to promote specific narratives about this conflict appearing in the editors remarks and actions. Calls to change page names to "massacres, genocides and famines" when such words are not commonplace but instead ubiquitous in a certain narrative's framing of this conflict but not in the mainstream. I said that I thought Putin, Xi and Islamists, who share Putin and Xi's totalitarian ethos, would be delighted to see that Wikipedia, which is viewed as factual in the Free World, could be altered to fit one specific narrative framing so easily. If I worked for their propaganda departments I would be studying these talk pages very carefully.

And with that action by me this arbitration was called.

After having been an editor on Wikipedia for something like a decade now I can't recall reading the WP:BATTLEGROUND page but now that I have I can say I feel better knowing that we have a process for dealing with the kinds of comments I have seen thrown around, especially recently on Israel-Palestine pages. From now on I will report any perceived uncivilly, insults, intimidation. Again, I apologize to any editor who feels I have been uncivil towards them.


Seraphimblade, ScottishFinnishRadish and Euryalus, Will I have a chance to respond to you before you impose a decision? As I'm reading this it seems the discussion has moved far beyond what was originally mentioned into something of a review of all edits that I have made on Israel-Palestine articles over the past few months with Euryalus providing both prosecutorial evidence against me and judgement. That same new evidence outside of the original discussion is then picked up by Seraphimblade and ScottishFinnishRadish and a topical ban on my editing is suggested.

That seems totally unfair considering that many remarks have been made by editors on this topic which, by this logic, would also require them to be Topic Banned. Instead, I have said here that I had never heard of "Battleground" until now and now having learned of it, after something like 10 years of editing, I think I should receive a warning given that I said I will take steps to avoid this behavior going forward.

Also, for the record, I don't recall ever saying anyone worked for Putin or Xi. I said, those leaders would be happy with edits that portray the war as one of mass genocidal massacres by an American ally. That clearly plays well with their narratives that the US is just evil, etc. But I never said that those editors were Russian or Chinese trolls or anything like that so please don't say that I did because I didn't and don't think they are. I think those editors are extremely passionate about this topic which is attested to by the fact that many of them post that they member of groups related to it and many edit pages on this topic far far more than I do. The fact that my perspective often differs from theirs, in a way that I believe is often more neutral (e.g. not referring to a gaza genocide or a gaza famine when most English news sources don't do this) I think is exactly what editing Wikipedia is all about. I think if you look at my contributions on this topic you will see that I have done just that by trying to keep things factual and in this case, pinging interested editors to help Wikipedia remain factual and not promote what in this case (a Gaza genocide) is still a fringe categorization in English language reliable sources.

  • I never said that anyone was editing on behalf of anyone. Please link to when I said that if you think that I did. What I said, was that Putin and Xi would be happy to see some Wikipedians promoting a narrative that is similar to their own. Those are totally different things. One is accusing editors of being paid propagandists (in which case they should be banned from Wikipedia) the other is stating my opinion about what narrative Putin and Xi would like promoted. I stated this already above but I saw you posted your comment after I had posted that so I would like restate that. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC) Comment moved to own section. Please comment only in this section. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've never had to defend myself in this way before so I'm not sure where to do it and it seems rather pointless since all editors have already stated that they want me banned from the topic. I think that goes way too far considering I wasn't even issued a warning, I have a long history of constructive editing and no previous bans.
I guess I simple summary is the best I can put forward so here goes:
Several editors have been trying to rename Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza into Gaza Genocide for months now (the page is currently redirected). I saw on the talk page that the latest attempt to get the page renamed Gaza Genocide was ongoing and I pinged a random sample of editors of another Gaza related page to make them aware of the discussion. A case was filed against me with Arbitration for my action.
The initial finding was that Canvassing was not an issue since I clearly didn't intend to steer the conversation but instead just get interested editors to participate (True). A battleground allegation got added to the claim against me, likely since wrote that I had found a disturbing pattern in the renaming of multiple recent Israel-Palestine conflict articles in a way that they would fit a certain framing of the conflict (e.g. an article titled Gaza famine long before any "famine" had ever been declared, Gaza Genocide, again before any declaration had been made, multiple requests to delete or merge 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation into Nuseirat refugee camp massacre, etc.). A larger investigation into my edits over the last 6-12 months (?) has now uncovered that I have engaged with other editors in "battleground" language and should be banned from ever editing an article (or talk page even?) about the Israel-Palestine conflict.
I think this goes way too far, doesn't take me at my word and assume good faith that I mean what I say when I say I won't repeat similar things in the future and doesn't appreciate the fact that I have actually attempted to keep Wikipedia neutral and factual instead of allowing fringe narratives, at least in the English speaking world, to become facts on Wikipedia. I would like the judges here to reconsider the ban. I imagine that's unlikely but I think I have grounds for leniency. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 07:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wafflefrites

I am one of the editors that Monolopy "canvassed". Here is the response I posted in the canvassed thread (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAllegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Israeli_attack_on_Gaza&diff=1230684460&oldid=1230680601):

"I will say that the list of people that Monopoly31121993(2) pinged in response is a wider net then the original poster's, and the list of people actually reflects a good variety of opinions/voting. Per WP:CANVASS "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." So Monopoly's intent does not seem to be to sway the discussion a particular way, but to increase the sample size of participants in the discussion to be more representative of the larger Wikipedia population and less skewed.

In terms of battleground behavior, the I-P topic area does seem to have a lot of this behavior from both the "Pro-Israel"/"Pro-Palestinian" sides. I haven't been able tell which side Monopoly31121993(2) is on in the past, but I think he should probably take a break from Wikipedia and try to conduct himself more professionally based on the 20:11, 23 June 2024 diff. Also his comment on Xi re-writing Wikipedia is inaccurate because Wikipedia is blocked in China unless you are using a VPN.

Not sure what an Arbpia 4 sanction is. Wafflefrites (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iskandar323

@User:Wafflefrites: As I have since responded in the relevant thread, the canvassing instance here is not of a form permitted or advocated for per WP:APPNOTE. Mass pinging of this nature is typically only done to call back editors from the same discussion or previous related discussions on the same talk page to review a development in a dispute. Appropriate alerts to garner more viewpoints should take the form of neutral messages on public forums or the talk pages of directly related articles, etc. Here, it cannot be readily ruled out that Monopoly saw an audience in an entirely separate discussion that he thought potentially sympathetic to a certain POV and pinged them on that basis. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FortunateSons

I don’t love the way the notifications were done (and then repeated) by any of those involved, but I think those deserve trouts at most, not warnings, as it’s closer to a good faith mistake than genuine harm, particularly as all seemed to have been made in an attempt to attract a larger but neutral audience. Not best practice, but not horrible either.

The statements about the motives of others are an actual problem, but also a general problem in this topic area. While it would have been better to go their talk page first, I think that an admin-issued warning to AGF might do some good to cut down on this sort of behaviour in this and other areas. FortunateSons (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Monopoly31121993(2)

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
@Monopoly31121993(2): Mildly, it's entirely normal for administrators to conduct at least a brief review of an editor's edits when evaluating an allegation against them. In this specific case it's suggested your ARBPIA editing has breached policies on battleground conduct, canvassing and aspersions. To resolve those claims its necessary to look at your ARBPIA edits.
I'm a bit surprised that someone with 10+ years experience has never heard of wp:battle, but will take you at your word. As you're now aware of it: my concern is the tenor of statements like Drop the hate, the claim that other editors are advancing a disgusting narrative, that they are follow(ing) Hamas' PR campaign and that they should refrain from editing pages related to this topic because you don't personally agree with their views. This is textbook "battleground" stuff and is pretty unnecessary in discussions over article content. There is no reason to personalise content disputes like this, and certainly no reason to imply that other editors are supporters of terrorist messaging. It has also occurred over several months and is clearly not just heat of the moment stuff.
The question is what to do about it? On the positive side you say you'll avoid this behaviour in future, you have a (mostly) clean block log and a history of productive editing outside this topic. That's all to the good, and might steer the outcome toward a warning. On the other hand you do seem to have very strong views on this specific topic area. If so that's understandable: so do many editors. However this is why its a contentious topic with stricter rules over editing. Topic bans are fairly freely applied in ARBPIA to encourage editors with very strong views to work elsewhere in Wikipedia if their views are disruptive to a collaborative environment. It shouldn't be seen as a personal condemnation, just an enforced redirection towards the other 6.5 million articles. The question is whether your assurance of no future battleground conduct outweigh the risk of this occurring. That's the point of this entire thread. Your edit history and responses in this thread are important in reaching consensus on this question, and of course there's time for any further comments you or anyone else wishes to make before a decision is made. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: Yeah, support a topic ban. @Monopoly31121993(2): thanks for the replies. I appreciate this isn't the outcome you were looking for but there's evidence of a battleground approach over several months. An editor of your experience should be aware that statements like those listed above aren't acceptable, even if you had indeed never read the policy on it. As above, this is an area where many editors have strong feelings, and where topic bans are frequently applied to maintain a collaborative environment. Hopefully you'll see this in the spirit it is meant and continue your productive editing among the thousands of other Wikipedia topics which need work. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's enough plain battleground conduct here for a TBAN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like we're settled on a topic ban at this point? Any objections before it's closed that way? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't love this recent habit of mass-pinging everyone who's ever had their name on a talk page when starting an RfC, but to my knowledge there's no policy prohibiting it so long as the people who are pinged aren't cherry-picked to support one position or the other, and I don't see any evidence of that here. I'm a lot more concerned with the BATTLEGROUND conduct. This is a fraught enough area without raising the temperature even more; it's entirely possible to disagree with someone without insinuating that they're working for some dictator or another, and all comments like that do is needlessly inflame the situation. The article edit brought up above by SFR is, similarly, needlessly inflammatory and POINTy. Absent some very convincing reason not to, I would TBAN from the topic area based upon this conduct. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read the response, and am unconvinced. I did not say, Monopoly31121993, that you flat out said others were working for dictators, but that you insinuated it. "$DICTATOR would sure love what you're writing here" is exactly such an insinuation, and is a completely inappropriate aspersion. There was no other reason to even bring them up at all; they weren't relevant to the articles or edits in question. The rest seems either wikilawyering (yes, of course we consider an editor's behavior in general when deciding on AE actions), WP:NOTTHEM, or to essentially state in a very conclusory way "My way is right, so I did whatever needed to be done to get my way, because, well, it's right." I don't see any of this as compatible with editing in the ARBPIA area. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support topic ban Any editor who goes around claiming that another editor is editing on behalf of Ghengis Khan or George III, or V.I. Lenin or Francisco Franco or Mao Tse Tung or Idi Amin or Robert Mugabe or any other despot in the long sad cruel history of human beings ought to be blocked. The only exception should be when irrefutable evidence of that specific connection has been presented. Cullen328 (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peleio Aquiles

By consensus of administrators at this AE thread, Peleio Aquiles (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Peleio Aquiles

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
XDanielx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Peleio Aquiles (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/Index/Palestine-Israel articles

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

WP:CIVIL, WP:FAITH, and WP:BATTLE issues:

  1. 27 June 2024: "Bad faith editing"
  2. 27 June 2024: "you have no concerns for objectivity or accuracy; you're implementing a pro-Israel agenda"
  3. 8 June 2024: "You try hard to sound like you're worried about nothing but the application of Wikipolicy"
  4. 28 May 2024: various incivility
  5. 26 May 2024: "It's astonishing. It's not clear to me if you're truly this oblivious as a reader or if you're intentionally trying to intimidate other editors"

Incivil edit summaries:

  1. 27 June 2024: "shamelessly sophistic"
  2. 27 June 2024: "he wants to remove information he dislikes"
  3. 27 June 2024: "removing facts just because they don't help the narrative he wants to push"
  4. 16 June 2024: "POV-pushing"
  5. 8 June 2024: "obvious pro-Israel POV edit warring"
  6. 28 April 2024: "what an absurd excuse to push your POV"


Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None that I'm aware of.

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 12 June 2022.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have some other concerns here, mostly relating to WP:OWN, but they would be difficult to articulate without getting into some details of the topic and its edit history. I can elaborate if it would be useful, but I figured the civility issues are more clear-cut, and might suffice to warrant action of some kind.

There have been a few comments about my editing history. If admins feel that it's relevant, let me know and I'll address it more fully. Otherwise, I'll keep this brief to minimize distractions.

Regarding my tag of Al Jazeera's live blog, WP:ALJAZEERA calls it a WP:NEWSBLOG following a recent RSP workshop. In any case, I think it's generally understood that live update feeds aren't good sources for factual information, and others have not questioned the tag.

The other controversy Selfstudier mentioned, relating to the Flour massacre, is a bit more nuanced. If admins feel it's relevant, this was the most recent talk thread about it. — xDanielx T/C\R 01:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

27 June 2024

Discussion concerning Peleio Aquiles

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 Peleio Aquiles

  • My explanation is that @XDanielx is a serial POV-pusher who abuses and distorts Wikipedia's rules to remove content that he dislikes (ie, content contradicting Israeli PR) as I showed in the arbitration request that I opened and was eventually reverted. I won’t revisit the argument again -- I'm on my phone, which would make too much effort for all this. I might be digging my grave but my conscience is clean as to my edits. For all my difficulty to hold back from obvious POV-pushers I vouch for the substance of my contributions which were made in a good faith effort to represent what sources say. Daniel is the opposite of me, someone who complies with Wiki etiquette but only to wreak havoc in the entries with mass deletion of well-sourced content and tendentious interpretation of the souces. He should be topic-banned from contributing on Israel-Palestine topics. If Wikipedia decides otherwise, banning me in lieu of him, turning a blind eye to his obvious agenda-driven editing since he's much more adept at moving around here than me, that’s your choice. I'm not good at adhering to Wikipedia's ritual formalities, and I'm aware that this defense is proof, but that's all I have to say, and giving something different would, I repeat, be too much effort for this. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

Well, on the face of it, defendant should take a break, I would like to hear more about this. Selfstudier (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity, live coverage of breaking news is not what is meant by WP:NEWSBLOG, that refers to blogs that are hosted by news sites, not the same thing at all. Fwiw, I have taken a closer look at the content disputes that led to the outbursts of 27 June and I have restored restructured versions of material that was removed on 28 June by another editor of the same persuasion as complainant. I can see why defendant was upset, nevertheless, there are other editors who might also have weighed in on the subject matter and it would have been much better not to have overreacted at that point.Selfstudier (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

I have a question. Regarding "If, as respondent says in their reply above, filer is a serial POV-pusher who abuses and distorts Wikipedia's rules to remove content that he dislikes, then respondent needs to provide diffs supporting this. To do otherwise is naked casting of aspersions, and that sort of thing is caustic in contentious topic areas." The filer has provided 11 diffs that show WP:CIVIL, WP:FAITH, and WP:BATTLE issues. This is treated as enough information to make a decision. Are 11 diffs also enough to demonstrate that someone is "a serial POV-pusher who abuses and distorts Wikipedia's rules to remove content that he dislikes", assuming the diffs were consistent with the claim? Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding Red-tailed hawk. I asked because it seems possible that both the filer and the respondent may take the view that the other party is not fully complying with the Universal Code of Conduct's prohibition against "Systematically manipulating content to favor specific interpretations of facts or points of view", but neither party has filed a case on that basis with sufficient evidence to demonstrate something like that, and I'm not sure I can even remember seeing a PIA related AE case like that. Even if it is not the case here, it is a common situation in PIA, and it's not entirely clear why cases about bias are not filed. I'm not sure anyone even knows how to do it, hence my question. It's tempting to think it is because it involves too much work to compile the evidence, but people often submit a substantial amount of evidence to support their theories for SPI cases and often spend a lot of time explaining their views on talk pages. As recent PIA topic bans seem to show, this means that AE is largely limiting itself to handling speech rule violations, which are symptoms, rather than dealing with common causes like (mis)perceptions of bias, (mis)perceptions of agenda driven editing etc. And this creates asymmetries where what an editor says becomes more important to their ability to edit in the topic area than their impact on content, where speech becomes more important than a bias, where "manipulating content to favor specific interpretations of facts or points of view" has become normalized and is rarely, if ever, sanctioned. Sometimes article content ends up sort of vibrating between states as we all think we are fixing someone else's bias. This doesn't seem ideal. It would be good if it were as easy to address (mis)perceptions of biased editing here at AE as it is to address speech related violations. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Longhornsg

Plenty more examples of unhelpful WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior of the defendant, including claiming conspiracies on WP, removing sourced material because " it's irrelevant and of concern merely to pro-Israel propagandists", dismissing RS claiming they are "Israeli propaganda", and the list goes on. Longhornsg (talk) 04:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Peleio Aquiles

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Going to start off with a note that I warned Peleio Aquiles for the personalized commentary before this AE report was opened. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Selfstudier, I expect that'll be coming when they format the report. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ScottishFinnishRadish: are you OK with a TBAN here? If so, I will close the thread as such. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • These edits are certainly concerning, and look to me like this editor needs to be excused from this topic. Peleio Aquiles, if you've got any explanation or have anything to say, I would suggest sooner rather than later. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will note this 3rrn thread from a ways back, in which Peleio Aquiles was quite clearly edit warring within this topic area. User behavior does not seem to have improved over the years.
    On 27 June, the respondent opened up a conduct thread accusing another editor of misconduct on an article talk page rather than at any proper venue. Respondent stated then I may get banned for saying what I'm saying here, which to me acknowledges that the respondent was aware that the edit broke civility rules. If, as respondent says in their reply above, filer is a serial POV-pusher who abuses and distorts Wikipedia's rules to remove content that he dislikes, then respondent needs to provide diffs supporting this. To do otherwise is naked casting of aspersions, and that sort of thing is caustic in contentious topic areas. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sean.hoyland:
    I have read this attempt to file an AE report by respondent, which has all of one diff in it. And I sincerely struggle to see how that diff (which fixed phrasing and appropriately tagged an Al-Jazeera liveblog for an improvement in line with WP:NEWSBLOG's guidance to use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process) is in some way POV pushing. Respondent tried to frame that as some sort of bad faith action, but I am not seeing anything that approaches serial POV pushing based on what I'm able to find.
    I understand that serial POV pushing (particularly when civil) can be a bit harder to identify using diffs than flagrant incivility (which is alleged by filer here). It might require over a dozen diffs to demonstrate it well, but it also could just as easily require much less—it really depends on how obvious and concrete the POV pushing be. But I would expect something concrete to provided when making sweeping claims about another editor being here in bad faith, rather than merely asserting it so (or, in the one case a diff is provided, providing us something that is totally non-dispositive).
    — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sean.hoyland: Long-term POV pushing within the Arbcom-designated contentious topic areas is within the scope of this board. With respect to [i]t's tempting to think it is because it involves too much work to compile the evidence, but people often submit a substantial amount of evidence to support their theories for SPI cases and often spend a lot of time explaining their views on talk pages, one difference I can think of is that we have a somewhat hard cap of 20 diffs and 500 words per person. It's possible to ask for an extension, but I imagine that this point of friction might dissuade people and/or be a weakness in this area—particularly since dealing with POV pushing from an admin side may well require getting quite familiar with the relevant sources in an area. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shinadamina

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 Shinadamina

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Aredoros87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Shinadamina (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/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 29 April Deletes 4 out of 8 sources, that mentions Putin's relationship with Vardanyan, under the edit summary wp:refbomb all these references are not needed
  2. 29 April 5 minutes later deletes the content itself saying any such claims should have multiple sources
  3. 30 April Gets reverted and introduced to AA. Then I asked admins to make the article protected because exact same sentence was being deleted by newly registered users 3rd time already.
After doing random edits to reach 500 edit threshold (WP:GS/AA requirement), started doing an edit war. The user thrice removed official charges against Vardanyan, and replaced it with POV claims of him being a "political prisoner" with non-RS sources (state-owned channel).
  1. 8 June 1st removal
  2. 24 June 2nd removal
  3. 28 June 3rd removal
  4. 28 June Misinterpreted the source: represents senator Markey's statement as the statement of US congress

The user doesn't seem to be following WP:CIVIL as well. Moreover, when I complained about his secret content removal, he/she just ignored it.[13]

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 29 April (see the system log linked to above).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Shinadamina claims that their 3 reverts are not a violation, however according to WP:CYCLE, he/she was supposed take it to talk page, after his/her edits being reverted. Morover, he/she keep misintreperting the sources. Neither US Congress, nor UK Parliament called Vardanyan a "political prisoner". A public speech by individuals is not statement by the entire organization.

After being reported for misusing the sources, Shinadamina still keep doing it. Here[1], he/she added completely random link as a source.

I feel that here we have a pro-Azeri / pro-Turkish editor Shinadamina keeps doing personal attack even in this filing. This's the 2nd time already[2]

Seraphimblade, please not that, the user misused the sources 2nd time after being reported.[1]


Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification diff

Discussion concerning Shinadamina

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 Shinadamina

Actually action should be taken against @Aredoros87 because based on his edit history it is obvious that he is making biased edits to Azeri and Turkish subjects and negative edits to Armenian subjects. Please check the talk page of Ruben Vardanyan for the details. My edits have all been explained and proper sourcing used. Shinadamina (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the edits I have made were done according to wiki policies. Let me respond to each concern:

Edit 1) 29 April violation of WP:REFBOMB. There were excessive references. I removed 4 out of 8. All remaining references still support the content.
Edit 2) 29 April Article called the subject "Puttin's Wallet." As this represents the subjects in a negative way, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL we need multiple high quality sources for such claims. Even the references that I deleted were not enough or reliable to support this.
Edit 3) 30 April I did not do any random edits to get to 500. I did normal and productive edits and not for the purposes of getting to 500. I have not violated any policies in any of my edits. If you see any low quality edits in my history, feel free to bring it up.
Edit 4) 8 June - this content was removed by user:Aredoros87 and I brought it back. He did not have a proper reason for removal of highly relevant content. 
Edit 5) 24 June - accusations of "financing terrorism, creating illegal armed formations and illegally crossing a state border," puts the subject in a negative light and is a violation of WP:NPV. Calling him a "Political Prisoner" as many supporting articles have stated is more neutral. 
Edit 6) 28 June - proper edits made and new content added, that were later removed by @Aredoros87 
Edit 7) 28 June Technically I made an error here, but it is a minor error. I went ahead and fixed it, so it now says " In a discussion at US Congress it was stated that he and several others have been illegally detained in violation of international laws"
In addition, here are some other edits I made, which user:Aredoros87 has not mentioned
Edit 8) June 24 removed inaccurate information. According to citations  Major General Vitaly Balasanyan was former head of Russian Security Council, not Vardnayan. Someone tried to insert false negative info about Vardanyan here.  @Aredoros87 did not raise any issues with this one.

In conclusion, all the edits I have made were done according to policies. I feel that here we have a pro-Azeri / pro-Turkish editor (@user:Aredoros87) who is accusing me of being biased, while himself is biased. All his edits have been to display the subject in a Negative light, which does not represent a Neutral Point of View. I think it is him who should be warned and not allowed to make further edits to this page.  I also would like to Ping other active editors who made recent edits to this page to see what they think @user:Bager Drukit  @user:Vanezi Astghik @user:Charles Essie @user:Timb1976 @user:Grandmaster

Thanks. Shinadamina (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how the random link was added. But obviously it was an oversight and a copy/paste error. I have fixed it now. There were 10 other relevant sources, and I meant to add 2, but one was copied incorrectly. Shinadamina (talk) 05:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding WP:CIVIL all I said was that his edits seemed to be biased. I have not been disrespectful to him at all. There were no personal attacks of any kind. Shinadamina (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note: user:Aredoros87 previously had a 3-month ban per arbitration and blocked from editing any Azeri/Armenian related pages. Shinadamina (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In response to @Grandmaster: We are all entitled to our opinions, and wiki policies can be interpreted in different ways. Such matters should be discussed on the subject's talk page. I will follow the majority consensus. This issue doesn't belong in this enforcement forum. I believe user Aredoros87 has ulterior motives, attempting to prevent me from editing the subject's page. He previously had a 3-month ban per arbitration and blocked from editing any Azeri related pages. [See here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aredoros87/Archive_1] His history shows a bias toward Turkish and Azeri subjects, which likely explains his opposition to my edits.
Regarding the political prisoner status, multiple sources, including the members of US Congress and UK Parliament, have stated this. Let's resolve this on the talk page and adhere to WP policies for neutrality.
BTW, 2 of the reversals were done by Aredoros87 and one by you. So obviously this can hardly be considered a violation. Typically when an edit is reverted more than 3 times, then it is considered an edit war and must be discussed in the talk page. Again there is no need to open an arbitration here and let's continue civil discussion in the talk page and come up with consensus. Shinadamina (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC) Moved comment to own section. Please place all comments only in this section; threaded discussion is not allowed at AE. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Statement by Grandmaster

Since I was pinged here, I will comment. Shinadamina, you removed multiple times official charges against Vardanyan. Whether those charges are right or wrong, or present the subject of the article in a negative light is beside the point. We cannot remove information just because it presents a person in a negative light. It is verifiable information, and the position of prosecution must be presented accurately, with attribution. Stating that Vardanyan is a political prisoner is not in line with WP:NPOV, it is the opinion of defense and certain other individuals. Opinions cannot be presented in a wiki voice, they must be properly attributed to the people that expressed them. You removed 3 times charges against Vardanyan, despite other users objecting. It is not acceptable. You need to discuss and reach consensus at talk first. Also, making personal comments about other users' motives is not acceptable per WP:AGF and WP:Civil. Grandmaster 13:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 rvs were made by you. You removed the information about official charges that were made against that person, and replaced them with a claim that he is a political prisoner, citing the opinion of his attorneys and a US congressman. That is not in line with WP:NPOV. One of the sources that you included is not even about Vardanyan. [14] And even here you keep insisting that the US Congress and UK Parliament call Vardanyan a political prisoner, after you were told that those were opinions of a single US congressman/UK MP. You either do not understand what the source is, or deliberately misrepresent it. It is tendentious editing. Grandmaster 08:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Shinadamina

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • This looks primarily like a content dispute, which we can't and don't resolve here. I don't like to see things like the source misrepresentation on the US Congress edit, but as long as that's a one-time error, I wouldn't be prepared to sanction for that beyond an informal warning to take more care in representing sources, especially primary ones. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close this with no action as a content dispute. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deadman137

This is outside the scope of AE. General behavioral complaints not within the scope of a given contentious topic should be, if necessary, raised at WP:ANI. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Deadman137

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Alex9234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Deadman137 (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/Warning
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 28 June - User is committing vandalism against editors who add content to NHL-related articles and falsely accusing them of disruptive behavior. Mass deletion of information added to 2009 Stanley Cup playoffs article without a proper explanation.
  2. 28 June
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 8 May One user recently filed a complaint against this user for deleting edits without explanation.

The user doesn't seem to be following WP:CIVIL as well and his behavior is close to WP:OWN. When I complained about his warning and his vandalism, he just ignored it.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
  • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
  • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
  • Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on Date (see the system log linked to above).
  • Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on Date
  • Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on Date.
  • Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict, on Date.
  • Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.
  • Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Deadman137

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 Deadman137

Statement by Philipnelson99

I just want to comment here that I don't think AE is the best place for this. I was reverted by Deadman137 a while back and I was confused why because they didn't explain but I asked on their page and they pointed out I made a mistake. Not sure why it's necessary to bring an editor to AE for that or why I was brought up here. Philipnelson99 (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Deadman137

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I'm inclined to decline this as malformed. @Alex9234: Would you please add the allegedly offending diffs in the correct slot above, and would you please specifically cite which arbitration case makes this dispute warrant arbitration enforcement? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alex9234:
    This noticeboard is for arbitration enforcement. Arbitration enforcement is a particular type of conduct dispute resolution, and it is only authorized within certain contentious topic areas. If you believe that this dispute is within a particular contentious topic area, please tell me which one it is. Otherwise, this noticeboard cannot process your request.
    If you believe that the user is being disruptive and that this is a user conduct dispute, but the dispute does not fall within a designated contentious topic area, the noticeboards you want to go to is WP:ANI (or WP:AIV if this is pure WP:VANDALISM, which this doesn't quite appear to be). But, before you consider doing that, I will note: if the objection is simply to this edit, you probably want to just open up a discussion on the article talk page about what content is worth including. That sort of editing is a normal part of the bold-revert-discuss process, and it doesn't appear to rise to the level of a noticeboard report.
    — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, please note the text above, This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. If you wish to make a reply, please make it in the section for your own comments, rather than directly replying down here or in someone else's section. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Safetystuff

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 Safetystuff

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Safetystuff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBPS and WP:ARBCAM
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. [15] 29 June 2024—2012 review by Vickers c.s., it has been found wanting in the past and deleted from the article; smacks of WP:PROFRINGE
  2. [16] 29 June 2024—smacks of WP:PROFRINGE
  3. [17] 29 June 2024—smacks of WP:PROFRINGE
  4. [18] 30 June 2024—violates WP:NPA, postulates a conspiracy theory, and is rife with non sequiturs (who cares about the "democratic way" when we discuss the positive results of medical science? See WP:DEM.)
  5. [19] 30 June 2024—writing such opinion just after being warned of WP:AE smacks of WP:RGW and seem to postulate a conspiracy theory; they claim to have a PhD
  6. [20] 30 June 2024—see explanation below
  7. [21] 30 June 2024—see explanation below
  8. [22] 30 June 2024—DARVO
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 [23] 23 June 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
  • I think that a formal warning would work better than at topic ban in this early stage. A topic ban might be required if they persist in error. I am aware that their mistakes are not so gross as to deserve a topic ban, but prevention works better than banning them. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of their edits might be formally (literally) correct, but severely downplay that vast amount of evidence that acupuncture is bunk. A case of WP:GEVAL. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, yup, my conclusion is that they did persist in error. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replied with science dissemination breaking down political or racist bias just after arguing at [24] that the Wikipedia article is colonialist and ethnocentric. That promises nothing good. Namely they try to paint us and the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia as racist. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have learned thanks to the positive feedback received by good people editing Wikipedia. Is that the language of someone having a PhD? WP:NOTKINDERGARTEN. Speaking of good people editing Wikipedia is infantilizing. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They speak of personal insults, but my observations that they are postulating conspiracy theories and using infantilizing language are not my own fault, but statements of fact. Don't shoot the messenger. If they think that postulating conspiracy theories and using infantilizing language are that bad, they should not have performed such edits. I'm am aware of WP:BOOMERANG: there is no immunity for the person who reports the mistakes of others (real or alleged). Rational, evidence-based criticism is not personal insults. If my claims are not supported by evidence, it would be easy to point out that. Mere handwaving cannot show that. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Walsh90210. What you ignore is that they have an agenda. Their agenda is pretty clearly described at [25]. Of course, they could repent of having such agenda, but this usually does not happen in a matter of days. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Walsh90210, thank you for pointing out they are different accounts. It is however baffling that Safetystuff did not point out that themself. It were a very easy way to prove me wrong. I'm not suggesting they are the same people, since although ChallengingAnthropocentrism claims to be much lower in academic degree, their English looks much more professional and academic than Safetystuff's. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Safetystuff: As Valjean wrote, Far too many problems to be worth keeping. Improper use of non_MEDRS. Attempts to shoehorn effectiveness using studies that say it's not better than any other method. Generally poor addition. Only one source was used correctly, the one about subsidy in USA. And that's because Valjean had to be very brief (an edit summary does not allow too many words). tgeorgescu (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Safetystuff

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 Safetystuff

This matter has been raised after editing the acupuncture page and the Chinese medicine one. I don't have any conflict of interest on the topic and I have access to scientific papers being an academic as such I did my best to provide the broader view on these subjects and many more.

I don't have anyone paying for my activity on Wikipedia. My interest is on science dissemination breaking down political or racist bias.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Safetystuff (talk • contribs) 00:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have done mistakes (I am human) but I have learned thanks to the positive feedback received by good people editing Wikipedia.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Safetystuff (talk • contribs) 00:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added Note: I hope some editors can moderate the personal insults that have been made against me. I am not replying back to these comments as I am not here to get into social media fights. Thanks

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Safetystuff (talk • contribs) 02:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2: Thanks to Walsh90210 for acknowledging the overreaction in this event. I felt like retaliation for editing the acupuncture page.

I provided solid references on the acupuncture topic. Meta analysis are among the best statistical tools to assess the effect sizes of interventions (in this case acupuncture). I use them quiet often to merge data from different experiments as well as I teach stats and effect size too. As such, I know how to read the results from the papers I used as references. Regardless providing results from several published meta analysises, all the proposed changes, which were moderate by other editors, are now deleted without a strong argument. Further , in NZ, acupuncture can be used under ACC. You can very yourself just googling it. Many health insurance all around the world allow it use. Please google it.

Now it seems I will be banned from editing the acupuncture page. Can someone please explain to me in plain English what I did wrong? I do not see the logic of what is happening here. Many thanks

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Safetystuff (talk • contribs) 05:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Walsh90210

The diffs provided are extremely weak evidence for the need for sanctions. An AE thread in response to (approximately) one edit feels like an extreme over-reaction; I cannot blame Safetystuff for jumping to the (inaccurate) conclusion that "moneyed interests" might be behind it.

However, the editing history does suggest that Safetystuff is a new user who might benefit from editing in other topic areas a bit longer. Without considering concerns related to the stigma of sanctions, a one-month page-ban from Acupuncture (which would require affirmative consensus on the talk-page for any changes) would likely be helpful. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valjean

I reverted all of Safetystuff's edits as there were far too many problems to be worth keeping. There was also a strong WP:PROFRINGE bent to them. I saw attempts to shoehorn effectiveness into the article based on studies long ago rejected or whose conclusions said that acupuncture was not better than any other method, that last part being ignored by Safetystuff. One source (Edzard Ernst was one author), criticized acupuncture. It said that acupuncture seemed to have an effect on low-back pain, but was no better than other methods. (Those of us who are medical professionals know that LBP often has a strong psychological factor.) That critical meta-analysis was then used to make acupuncture seem to be really effective, when that was not the main message. That's an improper use of a source.

Many of the sources were poor websites. That doesn't mean they were awful, but personal websites that were not official. Few of the claimed meta-analyses were actually that, but were instead peer-reviewed research or other studies that do not meet our MEDRS guideline standards. MEDRS requires much better than individual studies, even if they are of the highest quality.

The fact that private insurance often pays for acupuncture, and other alternative medicine, treatments says nothing about effectiveness, but more about how insurance companies cater to customers' wishes and can make money off the deal. One reference, about such subsidy in the USA, was actually a good and official source!

We are all volunteers, so drop the aspersions and conspiratorial thinking. The appeal to personal authority and PhD education status means nothing here. Many editors are highly educated, very intelligent, professors, authors, researchers, Nobel Prize laureates, etc. I know of the president of a national medical society who edits here. Even one Nobel Prize laureate is blocked from editing here, so status means nothing, except as a proven subject matter expert. The spelling and grammatical errors are fixable.

Safetystuff should approach this differently by making smaller edits and discussing any that are rejected. They will have more success. The idea of a "one-month page-ban from Acupuncture" is a good idea. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of a COI and using multiple accounts may not be completely resolved. See the overlap of edits with Carolineding (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the article history of Ruggiero Lovreglio. There might be other issues. Safetystuff has been warned about COI editing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I share Tryptofish's view about Seraphimblade's suggestion of a topic ban for alternative medicine, and that would be the usual "broadly construed". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I have serious concerns about whether Safetystuff is a net positive in the topic area. I came here from seeing the notice on their talk page, just after posting this: [27], at Talk:Acupuncture. The tl;dr of what I said there, with diffs, is that this editor repeatedly misrepresented sources that actually say mixed things about acupuncture, as saying that acupuncture has significant medical benefits, and cited a source about a primary study of acupuncture as supporting a statement that the Brazilian government pays for acupuncture. Some of this seems like not understanding what the sources say, and some really seems like POV-pushing. I also found pervasive problems with inept writing, although that might perhaps be an issue of not being a native English language speaker. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw above that Safetystuff said here: "Further , in NZ, acupuncture can be used under ACC. You can very yourself just googling it." (I assume "very"="verify", of course.) This is something that I commented about at the article talk. Here is one of two sources that Safetystuff added to support adding such a statement to the page: [28]. Here is a prominent part of what that source actually says: "Traditional Chinese acupuncture is not regulated in New Zealand. Be careful when reading acupuncture websites and advertising... It's not recommended that you have acupuncture as a sole treatment for your health problem." --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to Seraphimblade, I agree that alternative medicine is the right choice. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Safetystuff

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • @Safetystuff: Is it correct that your previous account was Carolineding? If so, why did you choose to create a new account? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Respondent answered this question on their user talk page, claiming that they are unable to reply here due to a lack of a reply button, and attributing the account to a former roommate. Given their multiple replies here already, which each would have required the use of the source editor, I find their explanation regarding why they chose to reply on talk a bit hard to believe. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would note that Safetystuff has continued editing since the question by Red-tailed hawk, but has not replied to it, so I think we can presume that there is some reason they do not want to answer that. Given the behavior by these two accounts, I think a topic ban is in order, but the question would be broadness. Would we be looking at acupuncture, alternative medicine, or pseudoscience in general? I would lean towards the second of those options, but would welcome more input. Safetystuff has contributed positively outside those areas, so I hope they would continue to do that going forward. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also add that I am not impressed by the vague allegation of "political or racist bias" without any substantiation at all. That's a pretty serious accusation, even if not directed at anyone in particular, and I would expect to see evidence presented if it's going to be thrown around. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, and the response is pretty clear WP:BROTHER in any case. I don't think this editor needs to continue editing in this area, given that. Unless any uninvolved admin objects in the next day or so, I will close this with a topic ban from alternative medicine. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trilletrollet

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 Trilletrollet

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Chess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Trilletrollet (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/Index/Palestine-Israel articles, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 2024-06-30 Edit summary for a !vote on whether The Telegraph is a reliable source for transgender topics is unsurprising that the same shit heads who support the Gaza genocide would also support transphobia
  2. 2024-06-15 The term "Khamas terrorists" makes fun of the accent Hebrew speakers pronounce "Hamas" with.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 2023-10-19 Editor has been previously warned (by a non-admin) for incivility in the Israel-Palestine topic area.
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Trilletrollet does not view their behaviour as incivil. After BilledMammal brought this up on Trilletrollet's talk page, Trilletrollet's response was At least I'm on the right side of history [29] and a promise to disengage from the Israel-Palestine topic area. [30] The last time 2023-10-22 Trilletrollet was confronted about alleged bad behaviour in the Israel-Palestine topic area, they said Just wanna say that I'm taking an indefinite break from this topic area.

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 [31], a voluntary topic-ban may help as well.

Trilletrollet does not believe the edit summary is a personal attack because It wasn't meant as an attack on any particular editors, just a general observation. [32] Is this an accurate interpretation of WP:NPA?
@Red-tailed hawk: I notified BilledMammal (the editor you mention) of this discussion so they can provide greater input. As far as I can see, creating redirects [33] [34] or disputing the usage of "Hamas-run health ministry" is not inherently disruptive. The issue I chose to focus on is that Trilletrollet often uses disruptive edit summaries or makes her point in an aggressive way e.g. posts on her userpage that Zionism is a cult of death. [35]. This extends to other areas she feels strongly about (e.g. this chain of edit summaries with a later-blocked IP editor fuck off [36] it's infested by you [37] look in the mirror bitch [38]). To answer your question, a single re-revert on Nakba denial isn't WP:TAGTEAM to my knowledge, and the only other interaction Trilletrollet has with Iskandar323 is in this thread. I define WP:POVPUSH as disregard for our content policies to advance one's point of view, and based on the diffs I see, that isn't the main issue.
A t-ban could allow for Trilletrollet to edit again when tensions surrounding the current Israel-Hamas war are less. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't add more w/o breaking wordcount, but I agree with BilledMammal & Sean.Hoyland. If nothing else, a warning should identify what behaviour is problematic, so it isn't disputed later. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323: While the initial comment was ambiguous, Trilletrollet clarified in a follow-up that she meant to call out other editors. [39] Reddit, a common source for memes, describes the term "Khamas" as making fun of an Israeli accent.[40] [41] I don't buy that it's ok because it's just a meme and not "directed incivility"; is your standard that I can post memes making fun of a group's stereotypical accents onwiki as long as I am not directing the memes at specific editors? If not, when is making fun of a group's accent not acceptable onwiki and why doesn't "Khamas" meet that standard? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

2024-06-30


Discussion concerning Trilletrollet

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 Trilletrollet

Just to clarify, I don't have any inherent problem with Israelis, Azeris, the British or any other national groups, but I do have a problem with ethnic cleansing, genocide and similar things. And it makes me kinda angry when people constantly try to downplay or deny such crimes. It just comes off as incredibly heartless, as if some human lives don't even matter. I've never tried to downplay the 7th of October attacks, because I actually have moral principles that I try to follow.
But I agree that some of my comments have broken our civility rules, and that's what matters in the end. I really have no interest in doing more edits to this topic area at the moment anyways. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 10:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iskandar323

There 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)[reply]

@Chess, @BilledMammal: A couple of points. The Telegraph diffs relate to the trans topic area discussion, and the subsequent responses are likewise more about that topic area. Then the IP-related diffs from Chess and some of the other examples from BilledMammal appear to be related to Azeri-Armenian content. So that's already quite a lot of non-Arbpia content that suggests this is more of a general behavioural complaint about inappropriate edit summaries more suited to ANI than AE. With regards to the "kh" meme, "khamas" with a "kh" means "violence" in biblical Hebrew, so the pronunciation is a widely understood wordplay,[42] much as Arabic speakers prefer "daesh" as a term for Isis due to its pejorative connotations. Since I doubt that you have any reliable sources stating that there is nothing political about the choice to use the "kh", even though people in Israel have little issue saying other foreign "h" words like "hi", I would be very careful about raising the spectre of prejudice over other editors. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

Given 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)[reply]

Regarding the diff #2 cited by BilledMammal as a civility issue.

  • 16 November 2023 - This move request is just a callous attempt to discredit the opinion that Israel's actions constitute genocide by cloaking it in 'both sides' language.

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)[reply]

Statement by BilledMammal

FYI, 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:

  1. 1 July 2024 - Off-topic ranting, the whole thing is a disgrace to our encyclopedia
  2. 16 November 2023 - This move request is just a callous attempt to discredit the opinion that Israel's actions constitute genocide by cloaking it in 'both sides' language.
  3. 16 November 2023 - Asked JM2023 Do you agree that Palestinian lives matter, and when JM2023 did not respond removed the comment, saying apparently not.
  4. 8 November 2023 - Describes editors raising issues with their user page as literally 1984
  5. 4 October 2023 - How will the Azeri pov-pushers explain this? (This one supports Chess' point that this extends to other areas they feel strongly about, as it is within Armenia-Azerbaijan)
  6. 13 April 2023 - you're trying to whitewash such a bigoted extremist group

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)[reply]

Iskandar, it mocks how Israelis speak - since when have we tolerated editors mocking cultural characteristics like accents, even when accompanied by the justification "I thought it was intentional"?
As for whether it is intentional, a few Twitter posts etc might claim that it is, but given those Twitter posts talk about Jewish "trickery" and invoke antisemitic passages from the Quran as evidence, and given that in Hebrew the closest transliteration of the first letter in Hamas is ח‎ (khet or chet), which naturally causes the mispronunciation, I think we need to reject that theory.
I think AE is the right location for this, as those are all contentious topics; WP:ARBAA, WP:GENSEX, WP:ARBPIA, with the issues being most common in the last. I also think you’ve misunderstood the Telegraph diffs; they apply to both GENSEX and ARBPIA. BilledMammal (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dtobias

Looking 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)[reply]

Statement by Aaron Liu

Please, 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)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Trilletrollet

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • WP:ENFORCEMENT notes that when an editor violates the community standards described in policies and guidelines, other editors will warn the person to adhere to acceptable norms of conduct, though editors will resort to more forceful means if the behavior continues. In general, if an editor cannot conduct themselves within a topic area in a civil manner, even after being warned, then more forceful means (such as topic bans) become reasonable. But I'm not quite sure we're merely dealing with a civility issue here.
    I am also noticing regarding respondent's conduct within WP:ARBPIA is that an editor left a note on respondent's talk page regarding several edit summaries that appear to principally be objected to for reasons other than civility: 10:48, 15 June 2024; 09:06, 23 June 2024; 09:16, 23 June 2024; and 09:18, 23 June 2024. Filer refers to an ANI archive from 2023 where concerns about tag-teaming/POV-pushing were brought up, and respondent said they would stay away from the topic area indefinitely.
    Keeping that in mind, @Chess: are you explicitly concerned about long-term POV pushing from this user more broadly? And, if so, do you have additional diffs that you would like to present? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I am seeing more than anything isolated to a specific topic area is that the respondent has had general issues with civility (particularly in edit summaries) across a few, including Armenia-Azerbaijan and the Arab-Israeli conflict. If the issue is not that the editor is misbehaved in one particular area, but has general civility problems across a bunch, a topic ban doesn't quite work.
    We're left with two options to address the civility issues: blocking the user outright or warning the user to knock it off and be civil. I am not going to indef the user at this point, and I don't think a time-limited block issued now would be better at preventing future disruption than a warning. So, I'm leaning towards a logged warning to remain civil in contentious topics areas, particularly with respect to AA2 and ARBPIA. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorabino

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 Sorabino

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Joy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Sorabino (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
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava#Improper merge
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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 advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle and abide by our own rules against it.

This isn't as severe as the case of Antidiskriminator, but it's close.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[43]

Responses to questions
Seraphimblade The pattern of behavior is the problem, not the individual edits. I can go and copy&paste you a slew of individual diff links, and they're still going to be on the whole too long and/or too subtle. The trick is to see through the forest, realize how the endless wikilawyering on the Talk page is not accompanied with producing properly referenced content, or indeed actually building consensus, and that it's a pattern of behavior going back multiple years. --Joy (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimblade JFTR I'm not telling anyone to read everything, I'm just saying I already read everything, yet my hands are tied because I tried to reason with them already. If this is not the right forum where admins can get assistance on arbitration enforcement, perhaps we need a better one. --Joy (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Red-tailed hawk Okay, let me try it like this, I'll summarize with dates and outcomes so you can observe the bludgeoning:
  • March 2021 Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 1#Duke of Saint Sava Makes extraordinary claims based on a 1923 book with explicit quotes around that title in a section title, and a single cursory mention of that in a 1953 encyclopedia article about that. These assertions are immediately disputed. Appeals to authority, no discussion about the quality of this, no real answer.
  • March 2021 Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 1#Discussion re-start More assertions, no proof whatsoever in several comments. Discussion mentions numerous historian works, Sorabino zeros in on a Vego 1953 book where there's a nuanced discussion of the terms Herzegovina and whatnot, but Sorabino ignores the nuance and just uses this mention as justification to keep pounding his party line. He pastes the phrase Službeno se zemlja zvala Ducatus Sancti Sabbae no less than three times in the same thread. After some more back and forth, Sorabino finally posts a bunch of links to articles in support of their claim, which are immediately panned by Santasa99, and a cursory examination shows why - it's a bunch of cursory mentions, some in footnotes, some under double quotes, in papers that don't always focus on the topic area but something related. There's actually maybe proper single mention in a 2019 paper about the same noble family, as well as a link I can't follow any more, and a Google Books search that doesn't show up any more but the search string says it's just an alternate name for the name Herzegovina (defeating the point of the argument). This is the aspect that reminds me of Antidiskriminator - mindless pasting of Google search results with no real analysis, which doesn't stand up to elementary scrutiny.
  • April 2021 Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 2#Common name and official contemporary name: explicitly re-posts the three claims made in the previous section. No new sources or anything of actual substance. User DeCausa joins to say the same thing, is met by more walls of text. Finally, we go "back to the sources", and then a 2005 article is cited as if it's in support, but it's actually a nuanced discussion by a historian about how the nobility used this title just like the nobility next door ('Herzog of Split' Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić). Repeats the citations again in the same thread, and Santasa99 tells them - no followup to that. Then another mention of the term in Ćirković 1989, again zero context, disputed, no response.
  • April 2021 Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 2#Three-layered subject of the article: another unsourced rant, and at this point I start explicitly warning against this. No new contribution that would resolve the issue.
  • January 2023 Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 2#reference to Miller 1923: I point out the double quotes in the 1923 book (first item mentioned above). Zero response from Sorabino, other users argue a bit.
  • April 2024 the latter thread is briefly revived, but we see no improvement (another user requires a rehashing of the Herzog of Split comparison too). I recommend a merge, Santasa99 implements it.
Since I filed this, there's been more discussion at the latter link, but it's more of the same. Now I noticed there's a 2020 German paper mentioned, which has a couple of cursory mentions of these terms likewise. Sorabino is still desperately trying to construct a narrative for a standalone article based on obviously flimsy sourcing. That is simply not what the standard of contributions in this contentious topic area is supposed to be. When this kind of a thing is done once, twice, three times, fine, let's not bash the newbie. But after so many years, we need to stop spending valuable volunteer time on nonsense.
--Joy (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimblade Sorabino is not acting upon a content dispute using reasons based in policy, sources, or common sense (WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS), he's instead misinterpreting sources to advocate for policy violations. The problem here is not a content dispute, but persistent misconduct. --Joy (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Sorabino

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 Sorabino

Thank 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)[reply]

Several factual errors and misrepresentations have been posted here by my accuser. Starting from the top, he claims that I have been furthering a content dispute at this article for many years now. That is unfair and untrue, at least. My previous involvement in those discussions occurred only once, back in 2021, during the debates that lasted from march to may. Those debates ended with no consensus, and the article was kept, with its long standing scope and title, and that was the only proper outcome. During the following years, some users tried to reopen the debate, but no additional sources were presented that would justify abolition or merger of that article. I did not take part in those debates at all, as they also ended without consensus, and the article was kept unchanged. After more than a year of total silence on the talk page, discussions were renewed on 25 April 2024. Within a day, on 26 April, an involved administrator Joy (my accuser here) proposed to another specific user to merge this article, and that was executed on the same day! So, it was done only a day after the discussions were reopened, in spite of long standing disputes and without any notification to opposing users. To make it worse, the "merge" was used to abolish the very essence of this article, and then another radical step was made, on 28 June (here), when the remaining redirect was proposed for deletion, thus leading to the possible deletion of the entire history of those disputes. At that point, it was obvious that some questions should be raised in regard to recent actions and only then, three years after my first and only participation in 2021 debates, I decided to return to the talk page in order to raise the question of an improper merge. This is my first response, and the rest will follow. Sorabino (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of my accuser that in 2024 debates I repeated some sources (repeats claims about the 2019 source) is not true and might be an oversight from their part. None of the sources that I introduced in 2024 were ever mentioned in previous discussions. Thus, there were no repetitions, on my part. All newly introduced sources are scholarly papers from non-Serbian experts on medieval history (Croatian, Hungarian, German). Those papers are clearly showing that in scholarly circles there is no doubt regarding the historicity of the title in question (Duke of Saint Sava) and the existence of the late medieval feudal polity (Duchy of Saint Sava, 1448-1482). Articles on that very subject exist on 13 (thirteen) other Wikipedia projects, under the same title. Regarding some repetitions in 2021 debates, there indeed are some, but not in a copy-past mode, since the context of the debate was such that some sources were disputed, and therefore some source quotes were repeated, by various users. There are several other aspects of this entire debate, but lets hope that it is obvious by now now that this is in essence a content dispute. Sorabino (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thebiguglyalien

I 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)[reply]

Statement by Amanuensis Balkanicus

I 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. [44] [45] [46] 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." [47] 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. [48]

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. [49] 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)[reply]

Statement by Santasa99

Following could be a crucial point, these two (three) moments in 4 years long discussion:

  • after one of their many such scrapings around Internet for phrases I asked Sorabino to read the paper they ref and come and explain to me "what this "duchy" labeling means, how is that feudalna entity a "duchy", why is "duchy" and not something else, who calls it that way, when, in what context." They never even tried to explain; (on 1 July 2024)
  • and following DeCausa's two head-on tackles:
1) "Should this article exist? There’s virtually nothing about this Duchy in the text of this article. It seems to be merely a vehicle to acknowledge the existence of the title. it’s almost entirely about Stjepan Vukčić Kosača with a little on Vladislav Hercegović both of which already have articles." (on 4 April 2021);
and 2) "Sorabino, for years (literally) merging has been discussed and you have been the only editor that was against it. You responded by claiming the article could be saved by improving the existing and adding new contents, referenced by scholarly sources, that are abundant for the subjects in question, particularly in modern regional historiographies. So, I said Sorabino, just do it in a sandbox and post the link here. But you never did and you never did a thing to improve the article and justify its existence. This is the diff showing the state of the article when I posted that in April 2021 compared to what it was four years later when it was merged. Nothing's been done - not a thing - to improve it and address the point I made. I conclude there is nothing in the sources that justifies it as an article and I fully support the merger that has happened." (on 30 June 2024) --౪ Santa ౪99° 18:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I posted this just to add depth to @Joy's discussion regarding bludgeoning, because Sorabino never responded to concrete inquires and questions, they would go and add new walls of text recycling the same arguments with eventual addition of more scraping from Internet. DeCausa was, to say the least, flabbergasted, and i am simply exhausted. ౪ Santa ౪99° 20:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

I 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. I will update this post with more details regarding conduct issues shortly. Levivich (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Sorabino

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Joy, this report seems to be alleging a pattern of tendentious editing over time. That could be valid grounds for a sanction, but no diffs are provided, just a link to a discussion started a few days ago. Could you please provide actual diffs of particular edits which you believe demonstrate this pattern? Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As the filer of this request is unwilling to provide any evidence besides "Just go read everything and you'll see what I mean", I am inclined to close this with no action. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Joy, this is certainly the place for help with arbitration enforcement, but you have to do your part of it. None of us can read your mind; you need to specify particular edits that you think are demonstrative of the problem. (It need not even be exhaustive, just representative.) I can't know what anyone is referring to unless they're willing to say, and equally importantly, the editor being accused of such misbehavior needs the opportunity to respond to specific things and give their explanation for it. If you're not willing to do that, we can't proceed, because there is nothing with which to proceed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thebiguglyalien, the answer is that there isn't an easy answer to that. AE (and admins in general) can't make binding decisions on content, only conduct, so of course we always have to be very careful not to step over the line of saying what position someone "should" be supporting in terms of content. The question, then, is when "advocating for your position" crosses the line into "disruptive behavior in general". If I ever find an easy answer to that, I sure won't keep it hidden, but I don't think there really is one. We can say that making a hundred longwinded talk page posts in a day is almost certainly disruptive, and making one civilly worded one almost certainly is not, but there's a lot of grey area in between those extremes. So, evidence should go to show that the editor has gone beyond just advocating for what they think, and is engaging in disruptive behavior. How exactly you do that depends on how exactly you think they've crossed that line, so I don't have a "one size fits all" answer to that and I doubt one even exists. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the material now provided, this seems to be a longstanding content dispute about how best to interpret sources. That's outside the scope of AE, and AE does not make binding determinations on what content should be. Has there ever been any use of dispute resolution such as a request for comment to gain input from the wider community on the proper interpretation of these sources? I think that would be a lot more productive than an AE filing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Joy: In lieu of diffs to explain the general scenario from start to finish, are you able to provide something like a set of diffs that demonstrates bludgeoning? If the user is repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion, we should be able to point to specific diffs/comments where they are repeating themself over and over, or be able to get some rough count on how many times they are participating in a particular discussion (with some explanation as to why that would be bludgeoning). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salfanto

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 Salfanto

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
TylerBurden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Salfanto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBEE
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 12 June 2024 Adds in WP:WIKIVOICE that the perpetrators of a missile strike on civilians were the Armed Forces of Ukraine, complete violation of WP:DUE.
  2. 27 June 2024 Uses Twitter/X and other non WP:RS to claim the deaths of volunteers in Ukrainian military unit.
  3. 18 June 2024 Uses Facebook to reference another death on the same article as above
  4. 13 June 2024 Uses butchered Facebook reference to name commander of Ukrainian military unit.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 21 February Blocked by El C for persistent addition of unsourced content.
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 3 April 2023
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

2 July 2024

Discussion concerning Salfanto

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 Salfanto

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Salfanto

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=1136596190"