A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.
To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.
This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.
Please make your request in the appropriate section:
Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
---|---|---|---|
Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals | 28 March 2024 | 0/4/1 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
---|---|---|---|
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing | Motion | (orig. case) | 27 February 2024 |
Amendment request: Gender and sexuality | none | (orig. case) | 13 March 2024 |
Amendment request: India-Pakistan | none | (orig. case) | 18 March 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Use this section to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. This page is for statements, not discussion.
|
Initiated by Thinker78 (talk) at 05:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I am a veteran editor familiar with the civility, vandalism, consensus and dispute resolution policies, which I regularly consult, ponder about, analyze, and contribute to. I was unduly blocked[1] on 10 February 2024 after being involved in a content dispute.
At times, I notice in my watchlist removal of an ip talk page post. I check it out and most of the time I don't do anything. But sometimes it appears to be an undue removal. I can spend an hour analyzing and investigating the post of an ip. I don't expect others to do that but I expect others to respect it as part of the consensus process. These are some examples of my restores (I have done only about 16 in 8 years): [2], [3], [4] [5]
Ips also have the Wikipedian right per the Five Pillars to present their points in talk pages. I protest the stance that it is a waste of time or disruptive trying to assume good faith and trying to be more considerate with their criticisms. In fact, unduly removing their criticisms or legitimate posts instead of respectfully addressing them damages the project.
My edits of concern and publicizing objectively a discussion with limited reach elsewhere were based on Wikipedia guidance[6] but administrators showed lack of collegiality, lack of consideration and lack of respect when treating me like an anonymous troll,Wikipedia:Civility disregarding the consensus policy and dispute resolution process. Johnuniq and ScottishFinnishRadish issued their warning[7] and block against me without proper discussion.
Admin 331dot did not properly explain why they denied my appeal,[8] in essence just saying they liked it (WP:TALKDONTREVERT). Bishonen went further and not only did not explain why the points of my new appeal did not apply [9] (which I did only because 331dot advised me I could), but further blocked me, mentioning length. But WP:TALK, "If you really need to make a detailed, point-by-point post, see below for tips." They mention number of editors against me, but whatever points they may have had in the content dispute, they could have told me in a discussion beforehand without any need of accusations, warnings or blocks. (Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling).
Because of the perceived arbitrariness, lack of collegiality, imposing instead of seeking consensus, threats and blocks of the whole proceeding, it felt to me (not accusing anyone of) like I was being editorially lynched and I was deeply demoralized. An editor in the thread even said when criticizing me, "It does not matter if your block is entirely unjust. All you can do now is kowtow [...]"[10]
egregious poor judgment. Per Arbitration/Case/GiantSnowman,
Administrators are trusted members of the community, who are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and are held to a high standard of conduct, not mild. } Thinker78 (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I am very busy right now IRL, so I don't have time for much other than a short statement. I blocked after they started using Wikipedia talk space to deal with perceived behavior issues. This came up earlier here, after they restored a section that was removed as being in the wrong venue. They have also demonstrated a lack of understanding of what falls under disruptive discussion and editing, and appropriate venues for discussion, after I blocked an IP for this harassment, which was discussed here and here. If anything else is needed from me I'd appreciate a ping, because although I have this page watchlisted I'm not paying much attention to my watchlist. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I was going to suggest that the case request be declined with a suggestion to Thinker78 that it might be necessary to tolerate the views of the editors who commented at User talk:Thinker78#Chemtrails (permalink) and User talk:Thinker78#February 2024 (permalink). However, reviewing User talk:Thinker78#DTTR (permalink) shows that a similar situation has arisen. That concerns a comment by an IP that was reverted by an editor and restoredparaphrased by Thinker78. A subsequent discussion is at Talk:Mahatma Gandhi#Revert of ip, no explanation (permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I regret having spoken impatiently here, but I still believe it was time to revoke talkpage access. Bishonen | tålk 10:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC).
I'm not really sure what the issue is here, but I'm willing to answer questions. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Remind me I must write an essay about Wiki-saviour syndrome. Every so often it happens an editor shows up who perceives there is some perfect lost state of Wikipedia that the community has strayed from. Sometimes lost prophets are invoked (Larry). They then take it upon themselves to kick the moneylenders out of the temple and restore grace. It never ends well. Bon courage (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory seems to be another talk page with dozen or more reverts like Talk:2023, Talk:Minecraft, Talk:Harry Styles, Talk:Earth, Talk:Mathematics, Talk:Music, Talk:History, etc. There is likely over two dozen more examples that could be listed. The problems with those talk pages generally are that IP users and new accounts don't understand the Wikipedia is not a forum policy, leading to numerous reverts. The chemtrail talk page isn't as bad as the history talk page in terms of reverts, but there have been clear issues given the talk page banners.
I will give Thinker78 credit for trying to look out for these IP users and new accounts, but I think he made an error in restoring in this specific case. I would encourage Thinker78 to consider leaving a comment on the discussion if they restore in the future and to be more cautious as well. I believe that could have avoid this situation, or at least resolved it better than what occurred.
Regarding the events at the user talk page, I would say that it is disappointing. From my limited perspective, it feels like a swarm of users descended with some of them increasing the issue instead of trying to resolve it. Sadly, it seems that things spiraled when they shouldn't have and now here we are. I think there was a misunderstanding by Thinker78 about Dispute resolution by looking at SEEKHELP instead of CONDUCTDISPUTE. That mistake seems to have led to the block, which is understandable.
The only [One minor] thing that I could see as actionable was some behavior that leans toward Gravedancing elsewhere, but even that doesn't seem eligible for ANI or the Committee. This case does not rise to the level of the 2018 case mentioned. I think the parties just need to reflect on what happened, filing party included, and try to move forward. To borrow some words from that case, admining is a "thankless and socially difficult job" and that can apply to trying to help newer users and IPs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Goku V (talk • contribs) 9:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: Can you double-check as I don't see any comment restored by Thinker78 at Mahatma Gandhi, just a discussion there. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Edit: Striking [and adding] some text due to Aquillion's statement as ANI might be appropriate for something else. Still believe this case is a decline for the Committee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Goku V (talk • contribs) 22:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC) (Fixed at 07:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC))
Quoting Super Goku V: I will give Thinker78 credit for trying to look out for these IP users and new accounts, but I think he made an error in restoring in this specific case.
Maybe a reasonable assessment, but it shouldn't've led to blocking. I don't see any rationale for administrative action on this at all, much less that severe. It's something that could've been hashed out in user talk, or ANI if necessary. Also, as I've suggested elsewhere, a workable solution to this sort of thing is to not delete comments that lean toward WP:NOTFORUM, but respond briefly to anything substantive in them, note that WP is not a forum, notify the user page about NOTFORUM policy, and then close and archive the thread. This tends to prevent a "censorship of newbies" versus "encouragement of NOTFORUM ranting" debate from even happening.
Quoting SGV again: it feels like a swarm of users descended with some of them increasing the issue instead of trying to resolve it. ... admining is a "thankless and socially difficult job" ....
: User talk pages largely exist for editors to work out their differences. This can sometimes get heated, but it's a process and it generally works itself out. When it fails to, we have ANI and other noticeboards. There was insufficient cause for a block much less for talk-page-access revocation. WP is not actually disrupted by an editor defending their actions and objecting to actions that make them feel put-upon, even if they do it vociferously. In short, admins need to take action to protect the project, not to muzzle its participants when they're not actually breaking anything or doing any actual harm.
Also, ScottishFinnishRadish's diffs at Thinker78's user-talk of Thinker78 "canvassing" are not canvassing, but normal, neutrally worded notice in two completly appropriate venues. It is a bit disturbing to me that two different admins jumped on Thinker78 for restoring IP-editor comments on the basis that one admin thinks the material is "nonsense" (Johnuniq), which is content involvement, and in ScottishFinnishRadish's case of accusing Thinker78 of "a recurring pattern of not understanding what is disruptive" after Thinker78 questioned SFR's previous block of someone else in the same content area, which smacks of a different kind of involvement (retributive).
Diclaimer(?): I've had disputations with Thinker78 in the past (including recently), but also a civil and productive discussion (via email). So, I'm neither a Thinker78 fan nor critic. To the extent Thinker78 has been intemperate in some of this, I think WP:HOTHEADS may be worth reading, especially the WP:CAPITULATE section, which I think pretty much describes what happened with this blocking: if one makes enough noise, it may inspire someone else, with the ability to do so, to apply a gag. But this should not actually happen unless the project really is being disrupted. CIVIL, NPA, AGF and related policies are not requirements for brevity, cheerfulness, or obsequious politeness. Some discussions will be a bit heated, and long, and that is okay. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Thinker78 has been going around restoring obviously non-constructive drive-by comments for some time, eg. [11][12][13][14][15] (the last was removed under ARBECR). --Aquillion (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Talk pages should not be used to post time-wasting, inactionable, or abusive drive-by comments, as shown in the various diffs that have been posted. It concerns me that Thinker has used free speech ("rights") rhetoric in filing for this case, i.e. there is a right to make these kinds of comments on article talk pages. If Arbs decline, then this should go to AN/I per WP:PREVENTATIVE. Geogene (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and article talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing improvements to articles. They are not a forum for free speech nor for general commentary about an article's topic, and off-topic personal commentary on controversial topics is regularly refactored or removed entirely, and not just by administrators. This is moderation, not censorship, and it's necessary to ensure that discussions stay on-topic and to ensure the smooth running of the project.
Thinker78 has described their actions as "stand[ing] against undue censorship", and believes that doing so "mak[es] Wikipedia a more welcoming environment". They also seem to have an extreme view of the assume good faith policy, believing it compels us to find good faith in every word written here, which is a long way from the generally accepted consensus that we have no duty to entertain obvious trolls, and removing comments that are intended to distract editors into political arguments don't make Wikipedia more welcoming; quite the opposite actually.
It might be a noble pursuit to monitor reverts of IP editors for coaching opportunities, but as Chris troutman put it in the most recent discussion, "there is a difference between patience for a new editor unaware of how we operate and a crank who brought their derangement to Wikipedia." An IP editor who complains that we don't pay enough lip service to Donald Trump, or that calling chemtrails a conspiracy theory is "racist", or who openly impugns the intelligence of an administrator, aren't editors interested in how Wikipedia works, they're just here to disrupt with their petty grievances. They don't need to be educated, they need to be shown the door. Again this is not censorship, it's moderation.
Numerous editors have tried to explain this to Thinker78 over several years of related incidents, but even after being blocked and having talk access revoked, this case request shows they still don't get it. For that reason I think a case is warranted, as this is a pattern of disruptive conduct which the community has been unable to resolve. A case would examine whether Thinker78 is really upholding a principled position about editing being for everyone, or if they're really just watching for provocative comments to restore so they can then fight with administrators about it to make a point about what they wrongly perceive as censorship. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Just as a general fyi, the community recently discussed the removal of other users' comments here: [16]. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Pls decline, largely per Geogene, this may need to head to ANI. The filer feels they are a voice against censorship of "right-wing people" (their own words, 26 July 2022), when other editors remove disruptive thread starters made by IP users or newly-created accounts. It has been a practice in a contentious topic areas to nip clear bad-faith comments early before things get out of hand. This user opposes this practice, which let to their week block. And it is still happening.
I guess I started the events at Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory by reverting obvious nonsense. [17]. I have a little trouble imagining that the IP's post was anything but trolling, using the familiar "racist" trope for anything someone doesn't like. While the subsequent response may have been a bit more harsh than it needed to be, Thinker78's enablement and even justification of straightforward trolling as constructive is unhelpful. I don't see this as a matter for arbitration, this looks like extended forum-shopping. I do think that some form of editing restriction for Thinker78 may become necessary if they continue in this rather quixotic fashion. As I warned them, purposely reverting such comments can be viewed as an endorsement of the problematic edit, which is not a good look. Acroterion (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
The only thing I'd like to contribute here is in response to a claim by Thinker, that Ips also have the Wikipedian right per the Five Pillars to present their points in talk pages.
That is absolutely not the case. Editing Wikipedia is not a *right*. Nor is "presenting points" the purpose of Wikipedia. This misunderstanding of our core principles and purpose by Thinker seems, in this case, likely to lead to further WP:POINTy and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior if not corrected. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
It does not seem terribly likely that this case will be accepted, but I will make a statement, mostly to the effect that I think there's a persistent problem with talk pages and something ought to be done about it.
I struggle to see any reason why, outside of genuinely worthless garbage (e.g. "love too diarrhea shit my Pants
" or "Adfsfkkeeeesssllfddmm
" or "teh guy who wrote this is a MORoNN!!
") the project is improved by people deputizing themselves the talk page police and going through to remove anything they think is stupid, or already addressed, or whatever -- and doubly so when there's dispute over whether the comments are indeed worthless.
It really doesn't take that much time to {{hat}} the section with "Already answered, see Archive 8" or whatever. And it isn't that hard to just close it normally, in a professional manner -- we do not need to dismiss people with total removal or smarmy WP:SUPERHAT dunks. This makes the entire project look stupid and petty, in exchange for the benefit of... nothing, as far as I can tell. If somebody is making a genuine attempt to improve the article by pointing out bias and recommending concrete changes be made, then I think this is a legitimate use of the talk page, even if their opinion is stupid or wrong. Personally, I think the comment in question here is stupid, but its stupidity makes it much easier to respond to and archive it, not harder! Certainly, they should not expect to have their comment taken seriously and responded to in earnest, but it's really hard for me to understand what the benefit is supposed to be of aggressively removing comments in this manner.
If the five seconds required to type out an actual response and close the section is too much, then maybe no edits should be getting made, and it should be left to someone else who does have the time. By analogy, if you want to cook some chicken and you only have ten seconds to spare, you simply pick a different meal, you don't eat the raw chicken and get salmonella and say "well what I was supposed to do in just ten seconds". If there is not enough time to do the task properly, it is often better to just not do it at all. jp×g🗯️ 05:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)
{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}}
to do this.This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.
Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
Initiated by TenPoundHammer at 21:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
9.1) TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
— Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing § TenPoundHammer topic banned (1)
This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Per Thryduulf, I have chosen not to pursue complex restrictions further, but instead demonstrate that I understand why my behavior led to an XFD topic ban in the first place. I would like to present my understanding of my ban and appeal it accordingly. Thryduulf suggested my conduct since the topic ban is conducive to lifting it, and I would also like to show an understanding, and attempt to resolve, my past tendentiousness, recklessness, stubbornness, and other negative effects on the deletion process as a whole. My past behaviors included massive queues of nominations which flooded the queues, caused sloppy errors in fact checking and other practices of WP:BEFORE, attacks on editors whose participation in said discussions I disagreed with, and so on. I would like to appeal to a partial or full reversal of this ban -- whichever is decided better for me -- to prove that I have learned what I did wrong since the topic ban was enacted.
(Comment: This template is severely borked and I don't know how to unfuck it. I've tried a million things. Can someone fix this please so it's readable?)
I was asked by ToBeFree (talk · contribs) to provide a view on what led to the topic ban. It's my understanding that my behavior in XFD included mass nominations which flooded the queues; aggressive behavior toward those who voted "keep" (e.g., browbeating them into adding the sources they found themselves, aggressively confronting them on source quality, general WP:BLUDGEON tactics); poor application of WP:BEFORE (likely stemming from the frantic pace in which I was nominating); and misleading edit summaries (e.g., saying an article was "deprodded for no reason" when the deprodder did explain their reason and/or added a source). No doubt my actions negatively impacted the opinions of other participants in such discussions, which instilled in me a feeling of bias against me that only made my actions even worse. I can also see how informing editors of active deletion discussions on relevant topics constitutes WP:CANVASSing, such as the entire "List of people on the postage stamps of X" debacle. I also expressed great frustration in my inability to properly execute any WP:ATD such as redirection, not thinking that maybe my attempts to redirect or merge content were being undone in good faith and not as some sort of vendetta against me. In general, these show a track record of being sloppy, knee-jerk, and aggressive, and trying way too hard to get my way in spite of what others think. And again, I can see how such actions have caused others to view me unfavorably even before the topic ban was issued.
I know this isn't the first time I've been here, and my deletion tactics have been problematic in the past. Ever since I was topic banned, the thought of "how could I have done that better?" was on my mind, and I'd been formulating theories on how I could have approached XFD better. It didn't help that I spent much of 2022 unemployed and I was not in a good mental state because of that. I feel that I am overall in a better state as an editor right now, as to my knowledge I have not had any conflicts with editors in the months since the topic ban. I also feel that I have formulated solutions to keep the previously mentioned problems at bay and take a more measured, less stressful approach to XFD. This is why one such proposal should the topic ban be rescinded was for me to keep a list of articles I intend to nominate, with proof of WP:BEFORE being done. I had attempted such a list before the topic ban, but it never got very far and I'm sure I was already too deep in the throes of my angry hasty approach. But now I've had plenty of time in which I feel I have sufficiently cooled down and can tackle a more systematic approach.
I did take some time to try and find sources for some TV articles I had questioned the notability of in the past. In just the course of a few minutes I was able to give Stump the Schwab a source, but found it difficult to find others and tagged it with {{notability}}. Ego Trip's The (White) Rapper Show I trimmed some plot summary out of and added a couple reliable sources which I feel are just enough to assert notability for the show. By comparison, Fast Food Mania did not seem to be a notable show, and I made a post here with my analysis of sourcing. This is the kind of behavior I wish to continue executing, so I can take a more measured approach with more time to present my findings or lack thereof before (if the topic ban is lifted) sending anything to XFD.
A complex list of things you can and can't do is unlikely to gain the favour of the committee - complex restrictions are hard for everybody to remember, complicated to work out whether specific behaviour is permitted or not, and generally easier to accidentally violate. Instead, something like narrowing the scope of the topic ban to allow participation in deletion discussions initiated by other editors but retaining the prohibition on you nominating pages for prod or XFD is more likely to gain favour. Any removal or relaxation though will only happen if you have demonstrated an understanding of why the topic ban was initially placed and your conduct since the ban makes it seem probable that your presence in deletion discussions will not be disruptive. I have not yet looked to see whether both are true. Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
@ToBeFree: wrote I'd say it clearly also prohibits complaining about someone's decision to nominate an article for deletion, challenging deletion discussion closures on the closer's talk page, starting noticeboard threads about deletion closures or participating in deletion reviews.
I don't think it's clear that the proposed wording does prohibit all of those. I would read topic banned from initiating or closing deletion discussions.
as:
Accordingly I would suggest the topic ban be worded more clearly, perhaps something like: TPH is topic banned from:
They explicitly may:
Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
initiating or closing deletion discussionswhich is a lot narrower in my reading than it is in your apparent reading - e.g. PROD and CSD are not "discussions". The current restriction explicitly states "broadly construed" the proposed one does not, it is therefore reasonable to assume that its absence is intentional and significant. Certainly I cannot see any reasonable way to regard
participating in deletion review discussionsas prohibited by the proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
initiating or closing deletion discussionsmakes no difference to what they are and are not permitted to do. Thryduulf (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
It would be reasonable to restore TPH to participation in existing XfDs opened by others, and this will give the community time to see how that interaction goes. That is, a good few months of collegial comments, working towards consensus, finding sourcing or describing its absence, honoring ATDs, and the like would go a long way to demonstrating that TPH is moving past the binary battles of the old school AfDs we both remember. I'm most concerned that AfD participation is too low to sustain good discussions on more open AfDs at a time, and this would prevent that as a problem. I have seen TPH's desire to improve the encyclopedia, despite our being on the opposite sides of a lot of discussions over the years, and I would be pleased to find the dip in participation quality called out in the case was an anomaly in a long-term editor's carer. Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I remain of the opinion that the ban from all XFD was overly broad. The FOF for TPH referenced article deletion exclusively. Another alternative stepping stone besides banning from nominations and lifting otherwise would be to retain the ban in these areas (AFD, CSD in main space, RFD in main space, CFD for main space categories?, PROD) while removing it from the other forums. IznoPublic (talk) 02:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
If you do decide to lift this restriction, I'd encourage you to leave a provision allowing an uninvolved administrator to reïmpose it should it become necessary down the road. The appeal is pretty good, but the appeal in 2019 was also pretty good, so while I hope it won't happen, I think it's important to have a failsafe in case things go south again. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I started a talk page discussion with TenPoundHammer a few days ago about TenPoundHammer's blanking and redirecting of Monkey-ed Movies (link), Skating's Next Star (link), Monkey Life (link), 2 Minute Drill (game show) (link), and Monsters We Met (link) for lacking sources. I was able to find sources for these articles so reverted the redirects and added the sources. I asked TenPoundHammer not to blank and redirect articles as it was leading to notable topics no longer having articles.. Cunard (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Between 20 March 2024 and 21 March 2024, TenPoundHammer redirected 33 articles. Almost all of those redirects are in the music topic area which I do not focus on. I am concerned about the large number of redirects of topics that could be notable. Wikipedia:Fait accompli is an applicable principle as it is very time-consuming to search for sources on so many articles. Cunard (talk) 09:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Firefly (talk · contribs), you are the first arbitrator to comment in this amendment request since I presented evidence of continued disruptive editing on 18 March 2024. Should I present the evidence and request for expansion of the topic ban in a separate amendment request or keep it here? Cunard (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
I am not aware of other recent negative interactions around these blankings. This could be because blank-and-redirects get significantly less attention than prods and AfDs. Television-related prods and AfDs are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Article alerts. But blank-and-redirects are not listed anywhere so editors may not have noticed. I would have not become aware that TenPoundHammer had begun redirecting a large number of articles had he not redirected Monkey-ed Movies. He had previously nominated that article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monkey-ed Movies, where I supported retention.
It is unclear to me whether the existing topic ban includes proposing articles for deletion. I recommend that the topic ban be expanded to prohibit both proposing articles for deletion and blanking and redirecting pages since there is previous disruptive editing in both areas where he has prodded or redirected a large number of articles about notable topics.
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.
TenPoundHammer's topic ban (Remedy 9.1) is modified to read TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is
topic banned from initiating or closing deletion discussions. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. An uninvolved administrator may reimpose a full topic ban on deletion discussions (broadly construed) within the first twelve months.
Initiated by Sideswipe9th at 02:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
The GENSEX content area currently contains some of the most contentious articles on enwiki. There is an anti-LGBT+ culture war occurring in large parts of the Anglosphere, and some of our articles document the people, organisations, and events involved. As of 7 March 2024 there are 34 indef-ECPed articles, and 1 indef-fully protected article. Of those 34 indef-ECPed articles, 8 were articles whose first protection log entry was indef-ECP.
In September 2021 ArbCom enacted ARBECR for use in the WP:APL and WP:CT/A-I content areas, as a content area wide restriction due to widespread disruption. While GENSEX as a whole does not see the same level of disruption, individual articles within it do. Articles like Gays Against Groomers, Libs of TikTok, and Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine often see spikes in talk page activity whenever those groups tweet about Wikipedia. Articles like 2023 Nashville school shooting document crimes committed by trans or non-binary people, which are subject to intense off-wiki disinformation campaigns (NBC News, AP News). Occasionally we get articles that are subject to misinformation like Lakewood Church shooting, where groups like Libs of TikTok spread misinformation that the perpetrator was trans (Vice, Advocate, The Independent (UK)).
One area we see frequent disruption in are biographies of trans and non-binary people. This typically takes the form of deadnaming and/or misgendering of the subject. Because of the overlap with WP:CT/BLP many of the articles that see this type of disruption are often protected under the BLP CTOP, and where these articles are protected the disruption typically spills over to the talk page. Often revdelling and/or oversight is needed, for both articles and talk pages. Currently it is typical for protection requests to be escalated both in the severity of the sanction (ie semi -> ECP) and the duration (ie 72 hours -> 1 month -> 6 months, etc). It is also typical for the disruption to resume once a time limited sanction expires, forcing patrolling editors to return to RfPP. Because of the frequency of disruption to GENSEX bios, having ARBECR as an option in the standard set of sanctions would make long term protection of these articles much more straightforward, as it would provide an avenue to long-term protection outside of an WP:IAR based indef protection as a first action. My sandbox evidence has 5 examples of bios in this content area where indef-semi or indef-ECP were the first protection action.
While drafting this request, an example of where this restriction would be helpful has occurred; Sweet Baby Inc. As evidenced in the recent GamerGate ARCA there are some sources describing this as GamerGate 2, and this has been reflected in the volume and quality of the talk page discussions about the article. There are currently several non-extended-confirmed editors who I would describe as POV pushing and advocating for content changes that go against multiple policies and guidelines. On 12 March 2024, several high follower Twitter accounts began tweeting their displeasure about the article's content, with one canvassing Twitter users to the article talk page (evidence can be emailed to the committee if required). ARBECR would be extremely helpful for this talk page and article, in the same way that it is helpful for combatting disruption on Talk:Israel–Hamas war.
The selective nature of this proposal could put a higher burden on new and patrolling editors than the content area wide version. However this is also something that already affects those editors, where ARBECR is applied to an article whose CT/A-I content is secondary to the primary topic of the article.
To sum up, I think we're pretty far from requiring ARBECR across the entire GENSEX content area. However I think it would be useful for ARBECR to be available as a per-article page restriction as part of the standard set of restrictions available to uninvolved admins in this content area. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
admin should ECR talk pages, are you meaning admins should ECP talk pages? WP:ECR as currently written doesn't have a provision for just talk page restriction, nor can admins apply it outside of content areas authorised by the committee. As Aquillion notes for ECP, anything other than short-term semi-protection for article talk pages is prohibited by WP:ATPROT. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
In the time that I've been reguarly reviewing the admin noticeboards, RFPP has seen regular requests to protect BLP articles about trans or non-binary people who prefer that standard pronouns not be used. Invariably these do not come out of disputes over the subject's birthplace or nationality—they are, as Sideswipe documents, deliberate misgenderings and deadnamings. Since these biographical issues are unique to this topic area, I have protected them (and tagged the article talk pages) under GENSEX rather than BLP. I have of late taken to RevDel'ing these edits as we would do with edits that use slurs or defamatory language to describe people, and I would also suggest to ArbCom that it encourage this as well.
Sometimes these have spilled over into articles only incidentally related to GENSEX issues, like Cheshire home invasion murders (one perpetrator, convicted of rape in the case, has subsequently transitioned in prison) and more recently Music of Minecraft (one of the two composers is trans) along with the aforementioned Sweet Baby article. I doubt these will be the only ones.
When I protect articles, I generally prefer to start with semi for the shortest duration possible. And that is how I have generally tried to protect these articles. It's good to assume good faith on the community's part, that once the little break is over, everyone will be grown up.
But with these articles, enough of them have worked their way up to indef semi or ECP, or been put there by admins less willing to give the community the benefit of the doubt than I am (and looking back at the AE logs, I too have reached the point of long-term and indefinite protection like I recently made to Hannah Gadsby and India Willoughby. Even I will admit that it seems like a mere formality with many of these articles to not start with longer-term protection, because almost every time we get there eventually anyway.
Look at 2022 NCAA Division I Women's Swimming and Diving Championships ... we thought last year that since the event was long over we could unprotect it. Instead we had to put two years worth of semi.
I would defy anyone, actually, to find an example of a relatively decent-length article about a trans or non-standard-pronoun person that we've had for some time which hasn't had to be protected like this. Looking at last year's log for this topic area, I see articles whose protections will expire sometime soon and will likely have to be reprotected (some of which, like Maia arson crimew and Bridget (Guilty Gear), already have been so far this year). Go back another year, and you'll see the pattern continuing.
I really believe it's time that we include at least misgendering and deadnaming as behavior covered by ARBECR. Maybe it doesn't have to be imposed as soon as the article's created like we have been doing with PIA (at least for articles in that area closely related to the current conflict), but we can definitely give admins the OK to impose it at the first sign of that disruption. It will definitely cut down on admin work down the line, and it seems like it already has been the default posture of some of the reviewing admins for some time now. Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I have no objection to any of these proposals although I definitely agree with User:Sideswipe9th that it's better if we allow admins to apply ARBECR as needed rather than apply it to the entire topic area.
BTW, User:Daniel Case, perhaps this is WP:BEANS but I think the risk is low. Georgina Beyer passed away just over a year ago, but this was well after a lot of the craziness and unless I'm missing something apart from a 7 day semi protection [18] about 2 weeks after her death due to some misgendering, the article seems to have survived relatively without problem despite this lack of protection and being of decent size [19]. (I mean there early problem reoccured but was resolved via blocking. The problem AFAICT seems to be mostly from editors insisting on removing female and calling her male in edit summaries, although I think at least most of these have stayed away from inserting male into the article.) I think it helped that she was significantly out of the public eye in recent years although I also think her pioneering role is still fairly well recognised within NZ.
Nil Einne (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
(There's another example I can't discuss here for various reasons but could email if anyone is interested which while it is ECP protected, which I don't object to, looking at the circumstances I don't think it really fits into the pattern either.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@Sideswipe9th: and arbs: think we need clarity how per-article ARBECR applies to other pages. For topic level, as I understand ARBECR, it applies everywhere. So editors cannot bring up such issues at BLP/N or other noticeboard nor can they participate in AFDs etc as they can only make edit requests. I feel when disruption moves to another article admins can deal with it as required so isn't an issue but trickier for noticeboards. IMO if article-level ARBECR is applied it should apply not just to the article talk page but to all pages when discussing changes or concerns over that article like with standard ARBECR. Importantly, as I understand it, this technically allows any EC editor to close or revert any discussion by non-EC editors. However it doesn't apply to other articles so ARBECR on Elliot Page would not apply to List of awards and nominations received by Elliot Page (but an admin can apply it to both). And it's fine for editors to mention something of relevance at Elliot Page in discussion about the list but suggestions for changing Elliot Page would generally be off-topic on the list talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the advantages ARBECR offers traditional protection - it is of course extremely rare for a talk page to be protected, per WP:ATPROT, and indefinite semi-protection (let alone ECR protection) for talk pages is almost unheard of; but much of the disruption is currently on talk, as the redactions of BLP violations on Sweet Baby Inc. show. And more generally, prior to semi-protection the talk page was a mess of WP:FORUM stuff, WP:ASPERSIONS, general complaints about Wikipedia as a whole, and requests that were obviously not compatible with policy, repeated in every single section to the point of disrupting all other discussion there. ARBECR would let admins place slightly looser but more persistent restrictions on talk pages that would still allow new and unregistered users to make edit requests while limiting the scope of disruption; I don't think that extended-protecting a talk page, by comparison, is a viable long-term solution even if policy allowed it. --Aquillion (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
As has been discussed, WP:GENSEX is a massive topic area with plenty of fuzzy borders. There are plenty of good contributions from non-EC editors, and many of Wikipedia's efforts to reduce the gender gap intersect with this topic area and include encouraging new editors to work on articles. Applying WP:ARBECR as the default would have too much collateral damage. Applying 500/30 to individual articles and other pages is already available as part of the standard set, so I don't think there is any change that needs to be made here. If the current protection expires and disruption resumes, admins can impose more long-term protection. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I am generally in favor of giving more tools to administrators trying to address disruption on contentious topics. So I'm aligned with the proposal. In terms of what the language looks like, personally, I agree with Sideswipe in that I'd like to see it as an expansion to the already-authorized list of standard restrictions. This has the benefit of 1) not requiring any change in process to implement, and 2) achieves the "as-needed basis" element without hindering any administrator's ability to escalate straight to it it, if they believe that's necessary. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
RE: Primefac. Yes, there would be a negative impact by preemptively locking GENSEX articles under ECP. Small but helpful edits by non-extended confirmed users (and all IPs) at Death of Tyra Hunter would have been prevented from positive changes. This article also has never received protection in the two decades it has been there. But I don't know the extent of the negative implications that a preemptive protection would bring, and how to weigh that against the harm of the status quo. But I do know it would be some hinderance in the pursuit to collaborative encyclopedia building. I prefer having it be the norm that things can go straight to indef ECP if determined necessary. SWinxy (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
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.
To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This is why we ArbCom can act in ways that are an exemption to consensus. For instance there is a consensus, codified through policy, that says when an editor may be blocked. Contentious topic overrules that consensus and provides other criteria. There is a consensus against protecting article talk pages. As shown with ECR, ArbCom can overrule that consensus and provide other criteria. So WP:ATPROT doesn't strike me as some special barrier. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Initiated by Robert McClenon at 23:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACossde&diff=1214440521&oldid=1212446773
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APetextrodon&diff=1214440584&oldid=1212279589
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOz346&diff=1214440640&oldid=1210896395
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AUtoD&diff=1214440697&oldid=1214316349
Sri Lanka has a common cultural history with India, and a common political history with India including British rule in the nineteenth century and early twentieth century and resistance to British rule.
I have just failed a dispute at DRN over an atrocity that was a prelude to the Sri Lankan Civil War:
Declined Arbitration Cases
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1159486635#Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam (10 June 2023)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1158663393#Sri_Lanka_Armed_Forces (5 June 2023)
Archived Disputes at WP:ANI
Archived Disputes at WP:DRN
I thank User:Oz346 for submitting an RFC to resolve the question of language in the article about the 1977 pogrom. The RFC and this amendment request are independent of each other, to address a specific content issue and a general problem of disruptive editing about Sri Lanka, resulting in too many disputes. The purpose of this amendment request is to identify Sri Lanka as a contentious topic, which will authorize administrators at Arbitration Enforcement to deal proactively with disruptive editing with sanctions such as topic-bans. I have also initiated one RFC concerning the UN report on the Sri Lankan Civil War, and am about to initiate another RFC concerning the reported sexual abuse by Sri Lankan peacekeepers in Haiti. The frequency of content disputes about Sri Lanka illustrates a need for a contentious topic designation. I could have submitted a Request for Arbitration, but it seems less difficult to expand the area of the existing designation. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
This WikiProject has served its stated purpose and is now defunct.I think that any conclusion that the project has been successful is premature. I do not mean that the project has been a failure, but that declaring victory and going home was premature. I think that the contentious topic designation can be and should be used concurrently with other efforts at reconciliation. Any reconciliation project is voluntary. The contentious topic procedure is binding. The editors who do not participate in a reconciliation project are the editors who should be topic-banned. The admins at Arbitration Enforcement can and should make a distinction between editors who work for reconciliation, and those who do not. It will take longer for peacemaking editors to revive the reconciliation project than it will take for the arbitrators to expand the scope of a contentious topic by adding another South Asian country. As User:Vanamonde93 points out, the colonial histories of Sri Lanka and of India were separate, but the modern histories of the two countries are entangled. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I thank Robert McClenon for attempting to reach a resolution in the DRN. This is not a decision I take lightly and hence I took some time to think it over and I feel I agree with Robert, Sri Lanka needs to be designated as a contentious topic and the on-going disruptive editing about Sri Lanka needs to end. Cossde (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon, the need to designate Sri Lanka as a contentious topic and include it in arbitration has been made evident in recent edits by editors mentioned here. Edit waring has taken place in Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka and List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces, where WP:NAT editing is taking place where editors are removing cited content and adding highly controversial content with sources that have not been established as RS and have refused to demonstrate verifiability of sources per WP:CHALLENGE. Funny enough government commissions that have had question on biasness by these editors in RfC have been cited as RS. This only emphasises the need to designate Sri Lanka as a contentious topic.Cossde (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Due to the failure of this discussion: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#1977_anti-Tamil_pogrom
I have opened up a RFC. I believe that RFC have a much higher chance of solving these disputes, due to the input of multiple voices, and will be probably be less time consuming for all involved. Oz346 (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
The Sri Lankan Civil War directly involved India which initially supported the LTTE and later carried out a military intervention where Indian forces clashed with the LTTE resulting in the LTTE assassinating the Indian Prime Minister. The presence of the Indian forces within the country was also a major cause of the Marxist uprising in 1987 which happened alongside the Civil War. It is certainly related to India and Pakistan in the greater context. - UtoD 17:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I thank Robert McClenon for trying to resolve disputes in this area and Oz346 for submitting a RFC to resolve a dispute. But having edited in this area for years.I do not see it at having raised at this point to the level of the need for Contentious_topic_designation.Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation has taken care of disputes in this area for years and think we can revive it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Further the issues with Sri Lanka are distinct from the issues for India/Pakistan.Sri Lanka was never part of India during British Rule even Burma Province or Myanmar was part of India, British separated from British India on 1st April 1937.But Sri Lanka has always been separate.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I have not read the specific disputes linked above, but I want to note that as a consequence of Indian intervention in the Sri Lankan Civil War, and the subsequent Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, a substantial portion of this conflict (though by no means the entirety) is already covered by the ARBIPA CT designation. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
There appears to be sufficient evidence of Sri Lanka being a (lowercase) contentious topic, as evidenced by Robert, that should warrant it officially becoming a Contentious Topic; whether that's as part of an existing India-Pakistan coverage or it's own independent CT, is rather immaterial given that the India/Pakistan CT doesn't have any additional topic-wide restrictions beyond the standard ones. 21:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
As stated by Vanamonde93, a substantial portion of this topic area overlaps with WP:ARBIPA already. I'd also like to note that parts of it are also covered by WP:GS/CASTE, which includes political parties and other social groups in Sri Lanka. It might be worth a review to see if these topic areas can be rolled into one umbrella case, similar to WP:GENSEX. If Sri Lanka is designated as a separate Contentious Topic, we could have articles covered under the new CTOP plus WP:ARBIPA, WP:GS/CASTE and WP:BLPSE at the same time. That may create more confusion than it would to just merge them. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I would recommend against inclusion of Sri Lanka to ARBIPA. Sri Lanka is not as controversial compared to Pakistan, Afghanistan and India. Whenever disruption is happening in Sri Lanka-related topics, we can easily deal with them under our general guidelines like WP:DE. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment. |
Important information Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
KronosAlight is indefinitely topic banned from the subject of flood myths. Nycarchitecture212 is formally warned to avoid mischaracterizing the statements of other editors or otherwise casting aspersions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning KronosAlight[edit]
Discussion concerning KronosAlight[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by KronosAlight[edit]I don't support the theory under discussion. It's at best an amusing science fiction narrative, but doesn't have (at least yet) any serious scientific backing. As a simple statement of principle, a single academic research paper claiming to have debunked a theory propounded by multiple other authors with their own peer-reviewed academic research papers cannot be the basis for a claim in the 'voice' of Wikipedia that a theory has been "refuted" (which is the wording apparently desired) of neutrality vis-a-vis NPOV. This wouldn't hold in any other field or area of discussion, otherwise every paper claiming to have refuted Karl Marx for example would have been considered definitive, rather than a field of open and intense contestation. We would, at minimum (and I've been contributing to Wikipedia for 11 years now), take a passive voice of 'Critics claim that ...' for example, or some variation thereof. There is nothing wrong with saying something alone the lines of, 'The theory has been considered pseudoscientific by critics' followed by the citation. There *is* a problem with the line "The theory has been refuted" followed by a single citation to a single paper. That is very, very rarely how research papers work. Tgeorgescu was invited repeatedly to provide further citations - because, of course, multiple papers over a sustained period by peer-reviewed journals is a legitimate basis upon which a Wikipedia article can verify the verdict of falsity or pseudo-scientificity. He has not done so, when it would have been much easier than endlessly arguing with me for simply enforcing NPOV. I invite him yet again to do so - if a scientific theory has in fact been *refuted* (i.e. conclusively demonstrated to be false), it should not be difficult to find citations to reputable peer-reviewed scienific journals demonstrating so. In fact I suspect he would not find it difficult to find multiple papers seeking to debunk the claims made in this context, which might make such a cumulative case. The easiest resolution would be for Tgeorgescu to simply cite the papers he claims (and I think do) exist in a new edit in order to justify the original wording of the article. I have no problem with him doing so and the wording then remaining the same. The Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis is not considered mainstream science, and this too would be fair to note in the article in question, but the claim that it has been definitively "refuted" with reference to a single paper isn't in line with how Wikipedia balances these important questions of neutrality, bias, and pseudoscientificity.
Statement by Aquillion[edit]Regardless of what decision is reached here regarding WP:ASPERSIONs and the like, it would probably be best to take this to WP:FRINGEN. I think theory is obviously fringe, but how to best describe that and what sources to use for it still requires some thought; people at WP:FRINGEN are more likely to be able to answer that question. --Aquillion (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by Nycarchitecture212[edit]KronosAlight I'm sorry that you've also had a negative interaction with this individual. A few days ago, he attempted the same thing with me. When I messaged him on the article's talk page expressing my concerns, he didn't engage with them at all. He rigidly adheres to one academic narrative regarding biblical scholarship and condescends to anyone with a maximalist interpretation. Personally, I've decided to cease interactions with him. Regrettably, based on my experiences, he appears to be a contentious editor who doesn't engage in discussions and debates in good faith. He frequently reverts edits without delving into the details on talk pages and endeavors to impose his narrow point of view, exploiting Wikipedia policies to suppress discourse and shape articles from a singular perspective rather than incorporating multiple academic viewpoints. While I'm not certain about Wikipedia conventions in such situations or the specific rules he may be violating, it seems implausible that his conduct is permissible. I do think the wording was a little choppy, but your request for him to bring more sourcing is valid and the right way to move the conversation forward. He also reverted my edits of an anti-Jewish trope about pigs and blood that was poorly sourced and unrelated to the article. The trope of Jews and pigs and blood is best well known in Judensau (German for "Jew-sow") a derogatory and dehumanizing image of Jews that appeared around the 13th century. Its popularity lasted for over 600 years and was revived by the Nazis. Jews, who were typically portrayed as having obscene contact with unclean animals such as pigs or owls or representing a devil, appeared on cathedral or church ceilings, pillars, utensils, etchings, etc. He has a self-described ax to grind with Jews that he describes as a cult perputrating pseudohistory and was ranting about this again a few days ago which got his post struck. One of the consequences of that is he is subtly pushing a pseudohistory revisionist agenda to describe ancient Jews solely as Yahewists and to erase any mention of Judaism from articles about ancient Jewish figures including the Ahab and in the Abrahamic Religions articles. It's important to note that while some Yahewists may be Jewish, not all Yahewists are Jewish. Therefore, it's inappropriate to categorize these ancient Israel characters (mythical or not) solely as Yahewists. I attempted to update it but he reverted my changes and circumvents the responsibility of having good faith discussions. I hope that a level-headed administrator will thoroughly investigate these matters. Such action would send a clear message about the true culture of Wikipedia. - Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
This statement could be considered controversial or offensive, as it directly criticizes the perspectives of certain religious groups, labeling them as promoters of "cult pseudohistory." The use of the term "void currency" suggests that the views of Orthodox Jews on early Judaism are completely disregarded in mainstream academia, which is a broad and potentially misleading generalization. Similarly, equating the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding the fall of Jerusalem with pseudohistory could be seen as dismissive or disrespectful. The phrase "I do have an ax to grind against pseudohistory, especially against fundamentalist pseudohistory" indicates a strong bias against certain interpretations of history, which could be interpreted as antagonistic towards groups associated with those interpretations. While the speaker may intend to express a commitment to historical accuracy, the language used can be seen as targeting specific religious groups, which might be perceived as anti-Jewish or anti-religious sentiment. It’s important to critique specific historical claims or methodologies without broadly dismissing or demeaning the perspectives of entire communities. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Moved to correct section. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by BilledMammal[edit]Bishonen, I would read that comment as saying that Orthodox Judaism is a cult; it’s not quite the same thing as saying Judaism is, but given that Orthodox Judaism is the largest branch of Judaism I don’t think it’s a "blatantly misleading aspersion" 04:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning KronosAlight[edit]
|
Appeal accepted. As such, the extended-confirmed protection issued by Courcelles at Talk:Elissa Slotkin is revoked, and the previous semi-protection is restored. As that semi-protection was not a CTOP action, it can be appealed through ordinary means in line with the protection policy. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by andrew.robbins[edit]This page was already semi-protected due to events in July of 2023. Per WP:ATPROT, "Talk pages are not usually protected, and are semi-protected only for a limited duration in the most severe cases of disruption." Extended-confirmed protection of talk pages is so rare that is not even mentioned in the policy. If the disruption in question was the meatpuppetry allegation (which, granted, it may not have been. I can't read Courcelles mind.), ECP-locking is not at all proportionate. If the allegation is confirmed, the discussion can simply be removed after-the-fact. Even if found to be entirely inauthentic, the discussion was never uncivil or disruptive. The time-frame of this sanction of one year is also utterly disproportionate. The page is already semi-protected and had no pattern of repeated violations that would justify an ECP lock of that length. I am requesting that this sanction be reverted and the prior semi-protected status be restored. andrew.robbins (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Dcpoliticaljunkie: With all due respect, I think that the talk page got significantly more hostile after it was ECP'd, not more productive.
Statement by Courcelles[edit]
Statement by Dcpoliticaljunkie[edit]I believe this enforcement action is warranted and hope it will allow for more collaborative editing of this article. For whatever reason, a cabal of Twitter users have chosen to turn this article into a battleground driven by their dislike of the subject as flagged by Cpotisch and admin Muboshgu here. One of the ringleaders of this group of Twitter users (@progflippawi, believed to be the puppetmaster Thespeedoflightneverchanges recently admitted to actively spamming other anti-Slotkin Twitter users to find "experienced Wikipedia editors" to help add negative information to Slotkin's article. This comes after their numerous attempts to sockpuppet have been detected and banned. Simultaneously with the sockmaster's recruitment, a series of editors with sparse editing histories swarmed the talk page to argue for one of the sockmaster's pet inclusions which was previously removed by Drmies. Following the ECP, OrcaLord (part of the anti-Slotkin Twitter cabal who was blocked from the page for edit warring by ScottishFinnishRadish and separately previously warned for original research on the page is the only one of the group who is ECP to argue for the dubious inclusion: while not ideal, it is much more manageable than the swarm following blocked editor Thespeedoflightneverchanges's Twitter recruitment. The enforcement has helped. My report on the administrator's noticeboard has more details about the meatpuppetry concerns on this article in addition to the sockpuppet issue. Need to get back to work so will leave it at that. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Statement by Drmies[edit]Protecting a talk page is more common than some may thing, particularly in cases of continued vandalism or nationalist editing, for instance, and ArbCom is given the authority to do those kinds of things also even if they exceed what might be the ordinary reach of the ordinary administrator. andrew.robbins argues "well you can remove stuff later", but that (willfully or not) skips over the very fact that talk page disruption, esp. by people who act as meatpuppets would, is quickly highly disruptive, and the more posts there are, with responses and responses to responses, the harder it is to just remove a thread as a forum post. This semi-protection was entirely within the administrator's discretion, and even more so given the post-1992 status. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by andrew.robbins[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Aquillion[edit]Also see this open GENSEX clarification / amendment request, where the issue of ECP / ECR as it relates to WP:CTOPs is being discussed; it's still open, but at least some arbs are weighing in with the position that admins already have the authority to apply indefinite ECR to specific pages in CTOPs. --Aquillion (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Swatjester[edit]As a general principle, I think that any standard restriction able to be authorized on a contentious topic is, by definition, proportionate and necessary. If it were not, the Committee would not have authorized administrators to have such wide discretion in imposing said restrictions unilaterally. It would be self-defeating to the purpose of the CTOPS procedure to require a continuum of escalation in protection beyond what the imposing administrator thinks is appropriate. And I think in the case where an article falls under two separate CT areas and one of those is BLP, there should be an additional presumption in favor of preventing disruption, even if that comes at the cost of non-EC editors being able to contribute. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by Cpotisch[edit]I am not involved in this matter, although I was part of past disputes on the article. My viewpoint here is that discussions on the talk page absolutely have been uncivil and disruptive, and that the well-established influence of sock/meatpuppets has resulted in the deterioration of the quality of the talk page discussion. While it might be unusual to ECP a talk page, it is also, as noted below, highly unusual for there to be this level of off-wiki coordination. I was hesitant in the past to disclose off-wiki accounts, but yeah, it’s @ProgFlipPAWI, and scrolling through his timeline will show quite clearly what the issue is here. I’m bringing this up not to target users but to make clear that we are dealing with a highly-unusual situation that requires potentially-unusual remedies. A talk page spammed to swing outcomes will result in editorial decisions difficult to identify and reverse. Cpotisch (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by OrcaLord[edit]I support the User:Seraphimblade here, ECP a talk page for a whole year just over an unconfirmed sockpuppet accusation is overdue and drastic, it should be removed once the accusation is closed. Even if there is any confirmed sockpuppet, any effect of sockpuppetry can be cleaned up by just deleting the sections started by socks and the replies from socks, while the current ECP status prevents lots of potential goodwill editors from providing any contribution to that page which will lower its quality. Also, the page itself is ECPed and we should generally trust their ability to decide what should be added based on Wikipedia policy and sufficient information, ECP the talk page will only limit the information they can get. Statement by (username)[edit]Result of the appeal by andrew.robbins[edit]
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
Basically this user wants to use talk-pages as a debating society, in sensitive topic-areas. Their corrosive behavior is not limited to contentious topics (see e.g. this early edit summary) but their editing is heavily focused on contentious areas. I think that it would be good if they were firmly directed away from contentious topics, and battleground editing more generally. --JBL (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I've added three additional diffs of inappropriate behavior on a different page (Talk:Gender-critical feminism) in the topic area. Also, it is worth observing that the contentious edit (13 March) on Gender (whose reversion led to some of the discussions mentioned above) came after this earlier discussion (9–10 February) in which two editors objected and none supported the proposed edit. --JBL (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Clarifying about diff 9: after a third party politely requested they retract the personal attack, they declined to do so. (They have, eventually, struck the attack, but only after this discussion was opened.) --JBL (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
(I am requesting to exceed the 500 word limit.)
As I responded to Sandebeouf on my talk page, I apologised for my edit on Sarah Jeong, blindly not seeing the editing notice (I was not aware that the article itself was so contentious.) Furthermore, the notion of BLUDGEONING is a very difficult one to make. "Typically, this means making the same argument over and over, to different people". I have never even done this. In fact, if you see the talk pages across Reverse racism, Sarah Jeong, and Gender - contentious areas which editors accuse me of misconduct -, I have employed different arguments depending on the shifting of consensus. For instance, at Gender I proposed that the "man"/"woman" dichotomy was unclear, and then first suggested to replace to "male"/"female" (which was reliably sourced). Following that being not particularly accepted, I proposed changing the definition to relate to "man"/"woman"/boy/girl as it corresponded with the particular source (the WHO) that had been particularly cited. As for the talk page on Sarah Jeong, I likewise said that a particular statement was out of context. My first idea was to lengthen to statement to employ quotations of tweet(s) which I thought were strangely absent, then, as that clearly didn't seem popular, I suggested shortening the statement as I felt that the current wording of three lines was very awkward not to include quotations.
I don't treat talk pages as debating societies. But that does not mean there is no room for debate. If I make a couple of comments that are individually responded to by different people, I'll continue to respond to them; I never opened up any separate, unrelated discussion upon any discussion I was in. I was only responding to fellow talk page editors.
Furthermore, what is quite vague is the notion "Bludgeoning discussions in the face of clear consensus". There was no clear consensus on the article talk page for Sarah Jeong; the 2018 standing was established from no consenus in 2018: Likewise, even though it clearly seemed that multiple editors in the past few days have formed what seems to be a new consensus in opposition to quotation of tweets, I, as mentioned aboved, opined the shortening of the contentious statement, for the same reason as my original; the statement was awkward, and lacking context. Sandebeouf accuses me of misconduct on Reverse racism, when I was solely pointing out the flaws of the current wording, considering the flaws of the sources - not ignoring them. User:Crescent77 was also a user challenging the main opinion in that discussion. The article talk page on Gender does not have such a clear cut consensus in recent discussion (of course I understand that the current wording is consensus, requiring consensus to be changed), unlike the claims, because I was in conversation with only two people; User:Beccaynr and User:-sche. As there was no consensus among a mere three people, I have considered opening up an RfC, for the main purpose of widening the discussion. I am well aware of that route and acknowledge that it is regularly more suitable than so-called "holding the stick".
Otherwise, I do apologise for any usage of belittling language towards other editors; much of my edit summaries early into this account were admittedly immature (this is my first account), and I aim much more now for civility. As per the list of accusations; I agree that no.2, no.3, and the recent no. 5 and no.6 were unjustified. The no.5 and no.6 I apologised for recently in my talk page. As for the other accusations, I don't know how you could construe "Stop it with the patronizing" as dismissive, other than it being against dismissiveness, and no.7 (I genuinely have no idea how what I said here was in any way uncivil). Regardless, I sincerely apologise for the two main things I am accused of: Dismissiveness and debative attitude. I understand the solutions for the first and the second respectively; for dismissiveness, to listen to and respect people who I myself find dismissive, and for debative attitude, consider "dropping the stick", or potentially opening the discussions to wider realms such as RfCs. --Zilch-nada (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I also advised Zilch-nada that CTOP applies to biographies of living persons at 22:55, 14 March 2024. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
On 15 March 2024, I wrote notes on Zilch-nada's usertalk [35], [36], about Zilch-nada's conduct in the Talk:Gender discussion Zilch-nada opened on 9 February 2024 (permalink), after some review of Zilch-nada's usertalk history, including a 16 December 2023 note [37] about WP:BLUDGEON from HTGS, described as "just as something to keep in mind; something to think about", and an 11 September 2023 note from Dlthewave [38] that includes discussion of "excessively long comments" and refers to Zilch-nada's participation at Talk:Gender-critical feminism and Talk:Reverse racism.
Zilch-nada continued to restate their point/question on 18 March 2024 in the section I had opened at their usertalk [39]. From my view, three editors, including myself, have explained our perspectives about the current lead to Zilch-nada during the discussion at Talk:Gender, links to past discussions were offered [40], and no one is obligated to answer to Zilch-nada's satisfaction.
I have since skimmed Zilch-nada's participation in discussion at Talk:Isla Bryson case (permalink), which HTGS had referred to. I have some concerns about the potential for future disruptive conduct from Zilch-nada, including because of what seems like some WP:IDHT responses to constructive feedback offered about participation in the GENSEX topic area. Beccaynr (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
There was also a discussion opened by HTGS on 15 December 2023 at WT:MOS/Biography#Talking about a person’s “former” gender related to the Isla Bryson case article, where Zilch-nada made a personalized comment directed at participants [41]. Beccaynr (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I think the discussions linked above at Talk:Isla Bryson case and WT:MOS are likely better appreciated if read in full, but some diffs from Zilch-nada at Talk:Isla Bryson case include 00:41, 15 December 2023 Was Isla Bryson previously a man? I cannot believe I am not exaggerating when I say this is Orwellian avoidance of the question. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Answer the question.
; 01:00, 15 December 2023; 01:04, 15 December 2023; 01:10, 15 December 2023. Another example of referring to participants as "you people" is at 05:02, 15 December 2023.
Zilch-nada has indicated an interest in the gender article lead, and the second diff in my statement here has three diffs of some of my experience discussing the lead with Zilch-nada. I previously participated in discussions about the lead, and from my view, collaboration and consensus were possible because ultimately, the discussions were not a battleground. Beccaynr (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Some relevant bits from an exchange I had with Zilch-nada from the MOS discussion mentioned above, regarding the Isla Bryson case:
"prior to her transition": yes, when "she" was a man. Jesus Christ.
When I objected to their use of scare-quotes around "she" for a trans woman, they said these things:
Weird accusation. The article uses "she"; that's fine. But I'm not respecting a rapist in talk - I have mostly used the term "they" -, nor am I even remotely suggesting to misgender the average trans person. Nonsense.
When I explained to them that BLPTALK applies even to people who have done terrible things:
Not all "transitions" deserve equal respect - a view clearly espoused by the police, the prisons, politicians like Sturgeon, etc. etc.; that's how I'll refer to this "person" in talk. Is me putting scare quotes around "person" insulting all "persons"? Give it a break.
I think these speak for themselves. --Aquillion (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons
Editor was previously blocked from editing this page for disruptive editing and edit warring as linked above. In their first return to the article, the editor has argued strenuously for inclusion of original research that violates biography of living persons policy refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK in conjunction with suspected meatpuppetry organized on Twitter by repeated sockpuppet Thespeedoflightneverchanges. Has also discussed how to wikilawyering regarding this page on Twitter: "Sometimes there are small things in it that you can use to make your point/negate their point" which is more combative/warfare than collaboration to improve encyclopedia.
Editor's contributions outside of this article are positive from what I can tell, however, they've previously been noted to be part of a group of "anti-Slotkin Twitter editors" who admin Muboshgu has noted are looking to influence the article with POV-pushing.
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.
WP:DROPTHESTICK is obviously not applicable here. This is an active discussion with no achieved consensus yet. Dcpoliticaljunkie has been a consistent aggressor on both the Elissa Slotkin talk page and in many other areas, often making destructive edits to the Elissa Slotkin page without consensus, as well as accusing anyone who disagrees with him of meatpuppetry. The fact that Dcpoliticaljunkie is bringing up my previous ban on the page for edit warring is just further evidence that this request is an attempt to silence my position on the talk page, as I have already committed to no longer editing the Elissa Slotkin article after the ban, instead solely focusing on the talk page. Regarding the mention of my tweet, Dcpoliticaljunkie is clearly misinterpreting what I meant. What I meant is that it is important to take all parts of a rule into account when determining how to deal with a situation. My goal in talking on the Elissa Slotkin talk page has always been to ensure what is best for the quality of the article, and I have never acted in bad faith on the talk page. If you look at my account history, I have consistently made positive edits to Wikipedia, including the addition of thousands of detailed maps to Wikipedia. Considering my history, it should be very clear that I have always intended to make a positive difference throughout Wikipedia, including on the Elissa Slotkin talk page.
If anyone needs to drop the stick here, its you, DCPJ. The suspected meatpuppetry you linked was archived without a ruling. Using it as evidence of violations is, ironically, bludgeoning.
Mapping out viewpoints to sources is not OR. Arguing for the inclusion of a quote in the absence of consensus isn't POV pushing.
DCPJ has been reporting any user that disagrees with their positions on that talk page. This has been going for over a week now and needs to stop.
I'm just commenting here because I was pinged. I can't say whether or not Orcalord has broken rules on the talk page, only that they certainly haven't been arguing in good faith from a desire to improve the article. Their statements on the talk page are so obviously slanted towards trying to tarnish, however slightly, the reputation of the article subject regardless of what sources say that it's become a waste of time to keep engaging with them. Luckily nobody who wasn't an obvious meatpuppet with 13 total edits agreed with their POV-pushing, so I'm not sure how much damage they're doing. XeCyranium (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
[e]ditors should avoid repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion. Have individual editors been repeating the same point over and over in talk page discussions to such an extent that they have been dominating the discussion by sheer volume of comments? If so, an organized list of diffs showing this pattern of behavior would be very helpful in evaluating what's going on here. It's a bit hard to follow as-is, though I can try to go through the discussion diff-by-diff on my own if need be. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Withdrawn by appealing editor. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by tgeorgescu[edit]Human behavior has causes (reasons). My reason for misbehaving was that I did not know that WP:PROFRINGE is allowed on talk pages. I have learned this fact and I will behave accordingly. Sorry for the trouble I had produced. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC) Okay, seen the arguments, consider my request retracted. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by TheSandDoctor[edit]There was no sanction placed against tgeorgescu nor the other party, SamwiseGSix. The outcome of the discussion was ultimately that they were just both warned about incivility and BATTLEGROUND behaviour following a lengthy and heated discussion that saw both parties' conduct called into question by multiple administrators -- though not enough to garner consensus for formal restrictions/sanctions -- prior to my close. tgeorgescu admits that they were out of line ("misbehaving"), so not really sure what is to be accomplished here. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by tgeorgescu[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)[edit]Result of the appeal by tgeorgescu[edit]
|