Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 129
This is an archive of past Clarification and Amendment requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to file a new clarification or amendment request, you should follow the instructions at the top of this page. |
Archive 125 | ← | Archive 127 | Archive 128 | Archive 129 | Archive 130 | Archive 131 |
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Cunard at 05:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Conduct in deletion-related editing arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Cunard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- 7&6=thirteen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Statement by Cunard
I request clarification on these two remedies:
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing#7&6=thirteen topic banned
- "7&6=thirteen (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)
- "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."
The two topic bans say the editors are "topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed".
Does this topic ban include:
- initiating or participating in merge discussions
- proposing an article for deletion or contesting a proposed deletion
- adding {{Notability}} tags to articles
In this Amendment request, the Arbitration Committee did not consider turning an article into a redirect to be a violation of the topic ban. I did not think any of these actions would have violated the ban. But now I am not certain.
I created this clarification request after reading this ANI discussion, where editors found that 7&6=thirteen's contributions to a merge discussion violated the topic ban.
TenPoundHammer has started proposed merges including 1, 2, 3, and 4, and 5 and added the {{Notability}} tag to a number of articles including 1, 2, and 3.
I would like the Arbitration Committee to clarify which actions are allowed under the topic ban. Thank you.
Statement by User:7&6=thirteen
I acknowledge that I am aware of this discussion. I am aware of the topic ban from DELETION discussions entered a long time ago (2 years+), and have been in full avoidance and compliance. I admit that I edited a request to MERGE from and about an article that I had extensively edited into another geographically-relate article. At the time, I did not believe that the topic ban included a merger request. I was not "testing the boundaries", and had not done anything like that, abiding in good faith for the last two years. I posted things on that article talk page. There I made a mistake concerning the attribution of a needless irrelevant personal attack that had been made on that page. I corrected that (struck it out and inserted the actual quote by a different editor) and apologized. I made a mistake, and I undertook striking out the comment and also publicizing my apology. Details and an explanation of that are on my talk page, and I will not repeat them here. I had no intent to violate the TOPIC BAN on DELETION discussions; I recognize that there are those who allege that MERGE discussions are now included. While I disagree, I will simply implement that counsel in the future.
Indeed, I have given up entirely editing of DELETION discussions, and will now avoid all MERGE discussions in the future. You don't need to clarify or change the rule on my account.
However, extending this TOPIC BAN for a new and additional period is not justified or needed. It is unwarranted and unnecessarily punitive; and is not reflective or proportionate of my conduct or intent. A new finding will unfairly suggest that I did something wrong meriting a new set of sanctions, and would prejudice any future request to remove the three 2-year-old topic bans (WP:DELETION DISCUSSIONS, WP:ARS, and WP:DYK, for a year, but which apparently are self renewing and perpetual). I've followed all of them. Asking for them to be removed is not something in my contemplation at this time.
Nevertheless, I will implement my promise indefinitely, irrespective of any 'clarification' or not. I do not need the hassle. The point has been made, understood and put into practice.
For what it's worth, I have never initiated a MERGER proposal in 16 years of editing. Nor have I ever added Notability tags to articles. This has nothing to do with me or anything I did. I does not pertain to me and those accusations are irrelevant; you are being asked to fix something that ain't broke and didn't happen.7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- As a point of clarification, I note it was SerialNumber54129 (who is implicated here) who posted the irrelevant personal argumentum ad hominem that I called out at the merger discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, they
struckmy comments on that talk page, and annotated that they should be disregarded, because I had been "topic banned" from DELETION discussions ["7&6=thirteen is indefinitely topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed."] So if there are those who need guidance, it's not me. They did not like my content, and are putting their 'thumbs on the scale.' - Related discussion so the record is clear. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, they
- [Reply to Guerillero] Sorry to see you have "profound disappointment." But I was within the prior rule as this was not a DELETION discussion, and so far as I recall I had not even ventured into any other MERGER discussion in 2+ years. This was once; and only came up because I had edited this article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Statement by TenPoundHammer
Personally, I think this is being blown out of proportion again. I have not suggested that anything be sent to AFD after the last go-round, where I was warned not to do that again. It's clear how "should this be taken to AFD?" can be seen as me trying to skirt the topic ban. The below-cited Weird Al examples were on August 13, and the formal notification was not until the 26th, after which I have not done anything like that again.
I was also topic-banned from WP:BLAR. I have performed a couple merges since then, but these have been good-faith attempts to make sure at least some of the content makes it into the target article (e.g., List of Nitty Gritty Dirt Band members) after a clear consensus had been made to do so by other editors. If this is indeed too adjacent to my BLAR and/or XFD topic-bans for comfort, then I will cease doing it again until the topic ban is lifted (and not try to convince other editors to do it for me).
I don't see anything wrong with placing the {{notability}} tag, as I am not using it for anything other than its intended purpose. Whatever happens to the article after I tag it is entirely in the hands of other editors, and as stated above, I am no longer trying to persuade others to send content to XFD. I have noticed that a couple articles I tagged did get redirected or AFD'd by others, but in none of these cases did I make a suggestion of doing so.
I have not prodded any articles since the topic ban, since I assumed doing so would constitute a violation of the topic ban. I have deprodded a few articles without incident, and a prior inquiry as to whether this violated my topic ban had gone unanswered. I personally do not think de-prodding should be part of my topic ban.
tl;dr: Just like the last time I got brought here, I feel this is much ado about nothing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Statement by INVOLVED Seriality
Yes, I think I agree. It's because "deletion" has a pretty strict meaning on Wikipedia. A topic ban narrowly construed would, by implication, be a ban from that process specifically. But the fact that it is deliberately broader—i.e. more comprehensive—suggests that a less strict definition should be applied. And as GoDG argues, a border interpretation of deletion is anything that removes a page from the reader's eye, as merging, redirecting and incubating do (although it's only the process that 13 is TB from; a restriction on editing the articles themselves would hopefully be too broad an interpretation). SerialNumber54129 17:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @7&6=13: I know I am "implicated". That's why I upper-cased "involved" in my section header *facepalm*
- @Primefac. I don't think anyone is actually saying that merge discussions are deletion discussions; it's more nuanced than that (to be fair, is AE really set up for nuance?). Rather, that, in your metaphor, it's not whether content should be deleted, but whether it should live in the reader's eye or out of their sight. A merge is not a deletion, but that is not to say it doesn't appear that different to the WP:READER, who, whatever we dress the discussion up as, will not be able to see material they once could. SerialNumber54129 18:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Newyorkbrad: As you said on a previous committee, 'banned means baned', absolutely in line with WP:TBAN:
A ban is not merely a request to avoid editing "unless they behave". The measure of a ban is that even if the editor were to make good or good-faith edits, permitting them to edit in those areas is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, to the page or to the project, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good.
Your current remarks seem incompatible with policy. Indeed uou would seem to be allowing editing through a topic ban depending on who makes them and/or the nature of the edits. This is a seismic shift in policy. Apologies if I've misunderstood any subtext. SerialNumber54129 10:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I think you made up in opacity what you lacked in clarity. Thank though! SerialNumber54129 11:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Statement by GhostOfDanGurney
I felt that thirteen's posts were a clear-cut violation of a "broadly construed" TBan from deletion discussions, since that discussion was on whether or not Bent's Camp Resort should or shouldn't be merged into Mamie Lake (Wisconsin), therefore potentially resulting in the content of Bent's Camp Resort being BLAR'd (noting that the section for BLAR contains a "see also" hatnote linking to the deletion policy's section on redirections).
Given that the discussion was at Talk:Mamie Lake (Wisconsin) and not Talk:Bent's Camp Resort, I do think there's just enough ambiguity here that I didn't call for sanctions at ANI nor did I go to AE. At the time I felt striking the offending comments and a "don't do that again" were sufficient. However, @Tamzin: gave them an "only warning" in March 2023, specifically referencing this same "broadly construed" language, so I'm now not sure that "don't do that again" hasn't already been said. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Regarding TPH (which I was unaware of their recent merge proposals before), this given example at Talk:"Weird Al" Yankovic in which they say "Either merge it or AFD it."
should similarly be seen as a clear-cut, possibly egregious violation. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Szmenderowiecki
I don't have a horse in this race, but generally I'd say that if somebody's TBan says "broadly construed", they shouldn't test its boundaries. It is generally a bad idea whether it is broadly construed or not, because they already have drawn attention from admins, but particularly so with this warning. Trying to wikilawyer your way through your TBan is pure FAFO behaviour, and they shouldn't be upset if the admins start cracking down. The answer to your questions IMHO is pretty obvious:
- Yes, because merging will lead to at least some deletion of content - the nominated article may get deleted, some content during merger may be lost, and so on.
- Yes, because it is participation in said discussions, whether contesting PRODs or nominating for deletion.
- Not necessarily, as tagging by itself does not automatically lead to deletion discussions and in fact articles may sometimes stay with notability tags for years without getting deleted. Adding a problem tag is not in general participating in deletion discussions. They can tell on the talkpage what they believe is wrong with the article. But urging people to go towards a deletion discussion, or anything that would touch it, is something they should avoid as part of their sanctions. Again, they would be better off if instead of tagging, they actually found the sources, or told others they couldn't find any at all. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Replying to Flatscan - merge discussions are processed in the same venue as deletion discussions. So there potentially is a chance that what is a merge discussion may soon turn out to have consensus in favour of deletion. You didn't intend to delete, but you did get involved in a deletion discussion after all because the final result was delete. And yes, the nom has no control over how the discussion goes. Blocking for violating TBan in this case would be unfair, but you will definitely find people who will assert he violated his TBan regardless. It doesn't matter if mergers/blanking-and-redirecting are not technically deletions. The matter is, that discussion may yield a delete result.
- Because if that interpretation is correct, then basically the editor can spam AfDs with "merge" or "redirect" instead of "delete" and get away scot free because "I cannot predict if the article is gonna be deleted, I just respect the boundaries not to argue for deletion"
- This is why in my playbook "broadly construed" means "imagine any possible scenario in which an admin may potentially block you, even if they are not totally right, and stay away from it".
- That said, I agree with NYB below that we should punish participation per se but only if it continues to be disruptive. If it is not disruptive but still a violation of TBan, then a warning should be enough, and a recommendation to do something else and just wait until the TBan expires. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Flatscan
- Page deletion (WP:Deletion policy) and content removal (WP:Editing policy) are distinct.
- Merging or redirecting (0% merge, nothing copied) is not deletion.
- WP:Deletion policy#Merging (shortcut WP:ATD-M) and WP:Deletion policy#Redirection (shortcut WP:ATD-R) are subsections under Alternatives to deletion.
- WP:Redirect#Redirects that replace previous articles (guideline, shortcut WP:BLAR):
If other editors disagree with this blanking, its contents can be recovered from page history, as the article has not been deleted.
The omission of PROD was mentioned by arbitrators at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing/Proposed decision#TenPoundHammer topic banned (1), but it was not added explicitly.
Flatscan (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Szmenderowiecki, your statement that merge discussions are processed in the same venue as deletion discussions
is not accurate in this case and many others. As recommended by WP:Merging#Proposing a merge (information page) and WP:Proposed article mergers (process page), Talk:Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)#Merge Proposal is not an AfD. Neither of the restricted users edited WP:Articles for deletion/Bent's Camp Resort. Participating in any AfD would be an unambiguous violation of their topic bans, contrary to your hypothetical reasoning that would allow the editor [to] spam AfDs
. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Newyorkbrad
I realize that the scope of a topic-ban can be viewed independently of any specific edits that might or might not violate it. Nonetheless, it might be relevant to ask whether there have been any actual problems with the affected editors' participation in the disputed types of discussions, other than the mere fact of their doing so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- I seem not to have been completely clear in my earlier comment. My point was not that editors should be free to ignore topic-bans if they are making (what they perceive as) beneficial edits. It is that the scope of a topic-ban in the first place should be keyed to the scope of the problem it is intended to solve. If an editor edits unhelpfully about topic X but productively about adjacent topic Y, then in a doubtful case and all other things being equal, one might not want to construe a topic-ban on X to include Y. Of course, where the applicability of the topic ban is clear then it must be observed, unless and until it is modified. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Izno
When I made my votes on the relevant remedies, I did not consider merging processes. If I had been asked then, I probably would have said those would merit voting on separate or amended remedies, as our processes for merging are separate from those for deletion, and never require the use of the Delete button that admins get. ArbCom may do with that as they will. :) Izno (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Conduct in deletion-related editing: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Conduct in deletion-related editing: Arbitrator views and discussion
- Merge discussions are not deletion discussions; they are discussions of where content should live, not if content should stay. I am somewhat on the fence about {{notability}} tags, as it is a maintenance tag and not necessarily a discussion (though potentially the start of a discussion); I am willing to be persuaded in either direction. PROD would definitely fall under the "broadly construed" of deletion discussions, though. Primefac (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @SN, that is fair, I suppose my thinking is that merges are far enough removed from deletion (even though some content may be left out of the final product) that they would not fall under the "broadly construed" umbrella. Primefac (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'll tackle these in the order presented:
- Yes initiating or participating in merge discussions: This rides the line, but I come out as a "yes this is in scope." A merge discussion has many of the same hallmarks that a deletion discussion does. A merge discussion may also result in the practical deletion of an article, because redirected content is not always worth saving. The broad scope of the restriction favors including otherwise borderline topics.
- Yesproposing an article for deletion or contesting a proposed deletion: Clearly within scope for me. A ban from deletion wouldn't be very effective if someone could sidestep it by prodding articles.
- No adding Notability tags to articles: I don't see this as an issue. While I have personal beliefs about tag bloat, and think they should be used more sparingly than we do, placing a tag is not a deletion or a discussion. While it might eventually prompt someone else to AfD the article, I see such a link as truly too tenuous to be in scope.
- At any rate, I wouldn't punish 7&6 or TPH for having been in merge discussions up to this point, since I do think it was arguable as to whether merges are in scope. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think that merge discussions are outside of the bounds of the topic ban, I would like to register my profound disappointment that both 7&6 and TPH seem to be unable to stop touching the general area of the notability of topics. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Amendment request: PIA Canvassing
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Dovidroth at 07:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Dovidroth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Information about amendment request
- I am appealing my topic ban
Statement by Dovidroth
In the period since I have been topic banned, I have thought seriously about the proxying that I performed on behalf of a banned user. I apologize for performing these edits, and I will take proper precautions to avoid encountering such issues in the future. Furthermore, I should have been more forthcoming about what happened when asked about it.
Since being unblocked at the end of April, I have continued to contribute in other topics, including creating a new article (Rabbinic period) which was featured as a DYK and for which received a barnstar from another user. I also received a "nice work" comment from another user for work that I did on another page.
More than eight months have passed since the closure of the Arbcom case, and in practice I have been topic banned for nine months because of a previous topic ban. I would appreciate another shot at ARBPIA, and hope that Arbcom will consider my case favorably.
- After taking more time to consider my appeal, I have reached the conclusion that it is not time yet, and I apologize for submitting it prematurely. I request that the arbitrators close it at this time. I will continue to contribute positively in other areas, and I hope to appeal again in a few months. Dovidroth (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Eladkarmel
Dovid is a user who contributes greatly to Wikipedia and to the development of global knowledge. I think a long time has passed during which he hasn't stopped working on Wikipedia. I recommend also looking at the seriousness of his edits on the Hebrew Wikipedia (6,379 edits) and on Wikidata (12,866 edits!). Despite the incident for which he was blocked, I believe that today he can contribute greatly with his Wikipedia abilities even on this complex topic.Eladkarmel (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Statement by TarnishedPath (2)
Statistics for Dovidroth shows that they have made a total of 190 edits (as at the time of this comment) since their unblock. I don't see that this sample is sufficiently large to demonstrate that they would likely be a net positive if they were allowed to edit the WP:ARBPIA topic area again. TarnishedPathtalk 10:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Statement by starship.paint (2)
Earlier this year Dovidroth said regarding this, bolding by me, I have received multiple canvassing emails through the Wikipedia private emails system, which I ignored, and I have not acted upon them or responded in any manner. […] The unfolding of events gives me reason to believe that this situation might be part of an orchestrated campaign to smear pro-Israel editors
. Now, Dovidroth admits the proxying that I performed on behalf of a banned user
and I should have been more forthcoming about what happened when asked about it.
I'm afraid that Dovidroth's past actions and statements have abused the trust of the community. How can we trust that Dovidroth will be any more forthcoming in the future regarding this topic? starship.paint (RUN) 11:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
PIA Canvassing: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
PIA Canvassing: Arbitrator views and discussion
- The paucity of edits and time doesn't give us much to go on here, especially given the underlying conduct and the continuing spiciness of PIA5. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Decline --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- It is a reasonably worded request, but as the others have indicated there is a lack of demonstrable evidence in support of lifting the sanction at this point in time. Primefac (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Decline - After being banned by the Arbitration Committee in January 2024 and unblocked after a successful appeal in April 2024, I don't think we have enough information to appeal the topic ban at this time, given the lack of substantive activity. The trust issue that User:Starship.paint mentions is also an issue for a user wanting to return to this highly contentious topic area. - Aoidh (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Clarification request: Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Barkeep49 at 19:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- A consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may refer an arbitration enforcement request to the Arbitration Committee for final decision through a request for amendment.
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Barkeep49 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Statement by Barkeep49
Neither of the existing templates for filing something at this forum really works well for referrals from the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. I ask that the Arbitration Committee and/or its clerks create a template better suited to that purpose. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I wasn't trying to prove my point (seriously WP:POINT is not my style) but I will just note this typo and the fact that if we'd have had a real template I wouldn't have made it.... Barkeep49 (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Both Nableezy and Black Kite objected above to my naming the referral after the shared name of the two reports. I am sympathetic to what they are saying - as this committee knows I argued against such names of individuals while on the committee. That name was my attempt to do what the CT procedures say - refer specific requests (in this case both named after a single editor despite involving others). If there was a template, ArbCom's preference for how to name such referrals could also be made clear; perhaps ArbCom wants it named after the case being referred rather than the individual or perhaps it wants it to match what was at AE. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
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.
Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- I can see what I can do tomorrow; I have the day off. I am thinking of a button (perhaps wrapped in {{if admin}}) under "Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window"; does that work for people? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have added two admin-only buttons: One for requesting enforcement and one for appealing a sanction. There is an example enforcement request and an example appeal. Anything which should be changed? They make use of {{Arbitration AE request referral}}, {{Arbitration AE appeal referral}}, /preload-ae-request, and /preload-ae-appeal. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee: Arbitrator views and discussion
- Bakreep [sic] makes a good point :P I agree that having a dedicated form would be a marked improvement. I also admit I am pretty trash at Wiki coding, so we'll have to find someone more competent than I to implement it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree this would be helpful to have. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Wow! Thank you very much, HouseBlaster!
- I think this can be closed as done! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- @HouseBlaster: A button sounds like above-and-beyond — definitely do it if you have time, but I'd start with a template that contains all the most vital information. In my mind, other than the existing ARCA template, that information should probably include:
- Name of user in question.
- Procedural background: Link to the discussion. Underlying request (AE request vs. appeal).
- Decision to refer to ARCA: Brief 1-2 sentence summary of admins' justification for referral. Note any dissenting opinions. Do the referring admins want ArbCom to do anything in particular?
- Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you User:HouseBlaster. - Aoidh (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- This seems good to me, and I agree that this ARCA request can be closed. @ArbCom Clerks: Please close this request in 24 hours unless any arbitrator disagrees. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks to Barkeep49 for the suggestion and HouseBlaster for the coding. Cabayi (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Barkeep49 at 19:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
- Reason for referral
Pursuant to WP:CTOP#Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee, two Arbitration Enforcement threads naming Nableezy (thread 1, thread 2) have closed with a rough consensus to refer the dispute to the full arbitration committee for final decision.
- Lists of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Involved AE participants
- Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Andrevan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Alaexis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Zero0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Makeandtoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Snowstormfigorion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Referring administrators
- Barkeep49 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (referral filer)
- ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Valereee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Ealdgyth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Nableezy
- BilledMammal
- Andrevan
- IOHANNVSVERVS
- Alaexis
- Zero0000
- Makeandtoss
- Snowstormfigorion
- ScottishFinnishRadish
- Valereee
- Seraphimblade
- Vanamonde93
- Ealdgyth
- Information about AE referral
The first thread was headed towards consensus but was stalled over a number of issues, including what to do with Nableezy. I interpreted the consensus in the second thread to refer as applying to both threads given the uncertainty over what (if anything) to do with Nableezy and the stalled progress. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Barkeep49
A motivating factor for me to refer this was this comment by Guerillero. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- @IOHANNVSVERVS at least one uninvolved administrator proposed sanctions that would apply to you at the first AE thread. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Black Kite, I agree it is not a neutral name. As you know well from your involvement there Arbitration Enforcement names are never neutral when it comes to discussing specific user behavior. Given that the name of both threads being referred were after Nableezy that's clearly what is being referred. I went "rogue" with the "et al" because I don't think Nableezy is the largest problems in the two threads being referred - and said as much there - but that is what's being referred. I will say more below about this. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Nableezy
Nableezy et al is an amazing case title. That or "What to do about Nableezy?" I think the complaint against me from BM was utterly devoid of anything resembling evidence of something I have actually done wrong, and I categorically reject the idea that I do anything resembling "civil POV-pushing", but sure examine 40 diffs going back three years from me if you like. I'm sure there's something I've messed up in that time, but I generally think I edit in a way that I believe to be consistent with Wikipedia's policies and I am completely comfortable justifying my edits. Do I think that is merited? I promised I wouldnt laugh on Wikipedia anymore, so Ill just say respectfully no. nableezy - 22:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't object to the title, it made me chuckle. A chuckle is not an out loud laugh so I hope I am not accused of rudeness here. nableezy - 23:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Statement by BilledMammal
As a quick addendum, just seeing the evidence laid out and perhaps a "reminded" or "admonished" remedy may be enough in many cases. Unconscious bias is a very real phenomenon, so it's entirely possible some editors who are doing this type of thing are not even doing so intentionally, and just making them more aware of it may be enough to solve the problem.
— User:Seraphimblade
I fully agree with this; some editors fail to recognize their own POV, and if they are otherwise unproblematic, contributing productively elsewhere etc, then pointing that they have a POV they need to manage might be sufficient. BilledMammal (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
@Chess: I don't think your summary is accurate - in particular, the following doesn't happen:
If enough editors follow this pattern, "massacre" becomes acceptable for Israelis and not Palestinians. This is because Nableezy is consistently outnumbered by editors that want to add "massacre".
Between 2022 and January 2024 there were eleven RM's discussing whether to use "massacre" for Israeli victims, with ten finding consensus against. There isn't a pattern that would justify Nableezy switching their stance - which is why I believe the fact they did between February 2024 and June 2024, but only for when Palestinians are victims, and then back a few days later in June 2024 for Israeli victims, is evidence of systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view. BilledMammal (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Chess: I’ll try to get something for you. BilledMammal (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
@Zero0000: No thanks for or mention of my assistance with that analysis? BilledMammal (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS
@Barkeep, For what reason am I being considered "involved or directly affected" in this? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
@Barkeep, could you please provide the diff. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
@Barkeep, I'm not mentioned in those diffs. Neither was I one of the editors who participated in the "round-robin edit war". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49, please explain your statement that an uninvolved administrator proposed sanctions that would apply to me or else please strike/modify it. This is the second time you've made this statement and then ignored my objection to its accuracy. [1]
- My behaviour in that content dispute was exemplary, making a bold edit and then opening a talk page discussion when reverted. I know better than to expect any sort of positive comments from admins on this site but at the very least please don't say that sanctions were proposed against me when they weren't. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Alaexis
Statement by Andrevan
I opened the thread due to civility. I don't think it's civil to accuse me of tendentious, disruptive, gaming, wikilawyering, etc. without any evidence simply because all I did was revert back to the status quo, twice, separated by 7 days, and then I opened an RFC after prompting to do so and confirmation by SFR that my interpretation was correct. NOCON means status quo and that is confirmed by a related discussion about ONUS. All I'm looking for in my filing was these ASPERSIONS not to be made. Even if there is disagreement about my action, there is absolutely no evidence that falls under disruptive, tendentious, gaming, etc. My action was normal and rational. Those hyperbolic accusations are indeed not civil and not backed by evidence. Yes, Nableezy and I have had disputes before and I also tried to resolve it on his talk page, but he banned me from his talk page. I don't need an apology but I don't think such obvious violations of good faith and civility should be permitted. Andre🚐 19:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000
Thanks to Sean Hoyland, I can report that there are 10 articles related to the 2023-present war that have "massacre" in the title. Eight of them are about massacres of Jews: Alumim massacre, Be'eri massacre, Kfar Aza massacre, Kissufim massacre, Netiv HaAsara massacre, Nova music festival massacre, and Psyduck music festival massacre. Three of them are about massacres of Palestinians: Shadia Abu Ghazala School massacre, Flour massacre, and Nuseirat refugee camp massacre. (Corrections, please!) Meanwhile, the number of dead Palestinians is about 30 times the number of dead Israelis. It seems that these nefarious POV-pushers who are forcing "massacre" preferentially into the titles of articles about massacres of Palestinians are not having too much success. Zerotalk 13:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
@BilledMammal: Until now I didn't notice that you had posted results too. I acknowledge they are equivalent in this case. Also, if possible I prefer results from someone who is not a party. This response may be deleted after a day or two. Zerotalk 03:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Gripe. It is concerning how several administrators have suggested that ArbCom's role is to go on a fishing expedition to search for reasons to sanction editors. Of course they will deny that's what they wrote, but in reality it is. The editors who face sanctions will not be the newly arrived activists and socks large and small, who are the main problem at the moment, but the experienced expert editors who are the backbone of the project. Zerotalk 09:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Makeandtoss
I think this referral has two fundemental issues, that of the proposed scope and methodology.
Scope: There were two AE threads concerning different issues that were combined, having shared a few editors [3] [4]. Even in the first AE thread, it was an individual report that was later expanded to involve myself and others, each with varying degrees of involvement and behaviors, as was elaborated here by one admin. Here is a chronology of that first thread. So I have to agree with IOHANNVSVERVS' concerns.
Methodology: The proposed methodology in the second AE report filed against Nableezy is quite problematic, wanting to somehow police content, which goes against the scope of arbitration that does "not make editorial statements or decisions about how articles should read." Editors, while abiding by guidelines and reliable sources, are not necessarily expected to be totally unbiased towards certain viewpoints (neutrality), but more importantly they are expected to cooperate in good faith in dispute resolution whenever their content is challenged (objectivity).
In short, accounting for the nuances here is important while considering whether to accept this case in its proposed form, as otherwise there is a risk of turning this venue into a content committee and of assigning equal liability to different parties. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Snowstormfigorion
Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish
Statement by Valereee
WP:SEALIONING is incredibly tedious to prove. It can easily take 20 diffs -- sometimes more to show that the issue is ongoing or widespread -- and even if you've brought those diffs to AE or to ANI, no one wants to assess them because that many diffs are daunting to go through. One almost has to be involved at an article talk to understand the scope of the problem there. But it is a very real and very frustrating problem for well-intentioned editors working anywhere, much less at CTOPs, and as a project we need to find some way to handle this.
- IOHANNVSVERVS, you aren't mentioned by name in those diffs themselves, but you were among the editors being discussed/referred to in those diffs because of your inclusion in the case diffs, which was done by name. The first (fairly major and likely controversial) removal at a CTOP was by you. That doesn't mean you've done anything wrong, but it's best you're aware and make a statement. Valereee (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Seraphimblade
I've been around long enough to remember when ArbCom would handle a lot more cases than it now does. To a substantial degree, it's good that it doesn't need to happen any more, as that often means the community is able to resolve things which at that time would have been kicked up to ArbCom. But there are these particular types of issues, where the allegation is not some egregious bad act, or even a series of less egregious but still rather obvious ones. Rather, the assertion is that an editor's sum total of editing amounts to POV pushing or other types of difficult to detect and difficult to prove misbehavior. I think the format of an arbitration case, where evidence can be collected over time, from multiple editors, and examined over substantially more time and by substantially more eyes than an AN/AE report, would more often be the way to examine those. Other community venues are just not well-equipped to handle something of that nature. We know things like what's alleged here happen. I don't know if they happened in this case or not; I'd have to look through a huge quantity of edits over a long time span to figure that out. So, I think this should be taken, probably as a case, and I don't think its scope should be restricted to Nableezy. I would be astonished if only one person in this particular topic area had a pattern of behavior like what's alleged here. I am aware that something like this would require carefully treading the line of "ArbCom rules on conduct, not content", but again, ArbCom has substantially more time to craft something which does adhere to that while still addressing the underlying issues than AE does. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
As a quick addendum, just seeing the evidence laid out and perhaps a "reminded" or "admonished" remedy may be enough in many cases. Unconscious bias is a very real phenomenon, so it's entirely possible some editors who are doing this type of thing are not even doing so intentionally, and just making them more aware of it may be enough to solve the problem. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Vanamonde93
- I urge ARBCOM to look into this, because systematic subtle NPOV violations require evidence that is too large in scope for AE.
- I urge ARBCOM not to look at this superficially, and to examine, in addition to the language editors have used, whether they are engaging in discussions in good faith; whether they are misrepresenting sources; and whether they are treating Wikipedia as a battleground.
- I believe ARBCOM needs to examine behavior at AE and other dispute resolution fora in addition to behavior within the topic. The manner in which several participants of multiple POVs have jumped to AE to defend or attack each other has me concerned.
- I am inclined to think this should be folded into the extant PIA ARCA, though perhaps I am behind the times as to where that stands. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Ealdgyth
I urge ArbCom to not try to dodge this a second time. Yes, I understand that it is hard to gather the energy to face such a sure-to-be-contentious case. But, it is clearly not going to go away. I can't see any of the motions from the above referral that would have helped here with this tangled and fractious series of requests. Like Vanamonde, I urge you to not limit yourselves to a narrow scope or a narrow set of editors. As an editor who was involved with the WWII, Jews, and Poland case, I have to say it appears to me (as an admin looking into the area through the AE lens instead of as an editor in the topic area (thankfully!)) that some of the same battleground behavior is taking place. I do not know if there are the same issues of source misrepresentation and other types of editing problems, but I suspect that there is at least some POV pushing taking place, and AE is not well equipped to investigate that nor large-scale battleground behavior when there are entrenched sides that back each other up. (The irony of so many calls of "Icewhiz sock! Icewhiz sock!" also resounding in this topic area is not lost on me either... but whether those calls are justified or not, I leave to uninvolved checkusers who are experienced sockhunters). I do suggest a more neutral case title if it's accepted, however, if only to spare yourselves comments from editors that the case title is biasing the case. (A further note is that I have no desire to ever edit in this topic area and will not be subjecting myself to the source-article text analysis I did for the WWWI/Jews/Poland case. Once is enough). Ealdgyth (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- As a note to Parabolist - as far as I am concerned, BM's filing of the AE request is as much a reason to refer this to ArbCom as the alleged misbehavior of the editor filed against. The tit-for-tat filings and the constant filling up of AE requests by comments from editors involved in the area but not in the exact events being discussed at the AE filing is one of the worst problems in the area, at least for the uninvolved admins trying to figure out what happened - any AE filing is very likely to end up filled with too much commentary that tends to go off in too many directions, which buries the admins in so much chaff that everything is obscured. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Sir Kenneth Kho
This seems like a pretty straightforward case. I interpret "may refer an arbitration enforcement request to the Arbitration Committee for final decision" as in case ArbCom does not wish to deal with the request, it may pass a motion to remand the matter to AE. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Other than AE admins, very few people are involved in this case, are we sure that PIA5 is actually urgent? In addition, the canvassing RFAR apparently has little merit, the same goes for this case per Zero0000. If anything, this further proves the lack of coherent case in this topic area, ArbCom can't do much other than passing motions to cool down the temperature. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
I certainly share Zero0000's concerns on their "Gripe" section, this AE referral as framed will only target experienced editors, and the same goes with PIA5 motion that examines "interactions of specific editors". I hope ArbCom can use this referral to have a fresh look whether a new case helps or hurts this topic area. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Tryptofish (N, et al)
I'll start by thanking Barkeep49 and the other admins for doing something to get the ball rolling again, as well as for all the difficult work they do at AE. I really mean that. Anything that will get more attention, serious attention, from ArbCom would be a step forward.
Because I've been saying (with regrettable vagueness) in the earlier case request that I intended to present evidence about two editors in particular, if given the opportunity, I'll say now (with more regrettable vagueness, but I simply do not want to buy myself a ton of grief), that neither of those two editors has been listed here. But I still see benefit to ArbCom working with what's here, for now. Let's accomplish what we can. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Black Kite
"Nableezy et al"? Well there's a neutral case title if I've ever seen one (slaps forehead). Black Kite (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Parabolist
This sets a terrible precedent. Very few people, especially the admins, seemed to think BM's report was anything more than a normal content dispute. But because it was so long and full of so much chaff, it got called "too much for AE" and an admin helpfully filed escalated it to Arbcom with basically the idea of 'lets finally deal with this guy'? We should all be as skilled at weaponizing AE as BM, something everyone seems to forget he was warned about some time back. Parabolist (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Chess
Here's the issue I see:
- Some editors with questionable understandings of policy take a position, such as the term "massacre" being an WP:NPOVNAME.
- Editors comment at RMs when this benefits Israeli perspectives, e.g. Calling for "massacre" to be added for attacks on Israelis. Nableezy focuses their effort on these RMs.
- Nableezy does not bother to comment at RMs when the term "massacre" is added to attacks on Palestinians.
- If enough editors follow this pattern, "massacre" becomes acceptable for Israelis and not Palestinians. This is because Nableezy is consistently outnumbered by editors that want to add "massacre".
- Nableezy becomes angry at this pattern, and interprets this as a global consensus.
- Nableezy switches only to commenting on RMs when the term "massacre" would be removed from attacks on Palestinians.
- Nableezy no longer comments on removing massacre from attacks on Israelis.
- This is interpreted as POV-pushing because Nableezy is imagining a consensus that doesn't actually exist. It's a mirage created by editors that ignore our policies.
The current proposal I have is Draft:Manual of Style/Israel- and Palestine-related articles. I believe we need a centralized discussion board that is empowered to create global consensus on principles in the topic area. Then we need to make that consensus easily citeable in a discussion. When Nableezy is confronted with editors saying Attackers butchering people person-to-person on the ground rather than an airstrike. The former are frequently referred to as massacres in English; the latter are not. WP:COMMONNAME.
, [5] it should be possible to just cite MOS:PIA and the closer must judge based on whether or not the arguments showed the term "massacre" was used in most reliable sources. Instead, we get cases where Iskandar323 loses a discussion over the term "massacre" as applied to Israelis because they are the only one opposing the reasoning that this should be called a massacre since it was an attack on civilians.
[6]
Such a discussion board would empower BilledMammal to call out double standards in a topic area in a way that doesn't target individual editors. Double standards can be prevented by discussion closers acting on content instead of by WP:AE acting on editors. During this case, ArbCom should focus on trying to create better processes for resolving content disputes rather than try to punish editors for their conduct. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal: Any chance you can update your table with the outcomes of each RM? I've just been clicking on the links to every RM and it's hard to see the pattern you're describing. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Bluethricecreamman
- No way to consider Nableezy's without considering everyone else. should be part of PIA5 along with consideration of all other PIA active editors. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- As WP:PIA5 is happening, please fold this case into it at this point, along with examinations of all others. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Huldra2
pr Biladmammal's is evidence of systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view: Biladmammal has pointed our attention to massacre-articles, but that is only one area. When it comes to civilian deaths the number of Palestinian casualties are 10-100 times as many as Israeli Jewish civilian casualties. (see Israeli–Palestinian conflict#Fatalities) But you wouldn't know that from reading Wikipedia, as wp editors for years have created articles about Jewish victims, but not about Palestinian victims. Huldra (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Also, for all of you who thinks that there is a lot of "noice" in the IP-area of wikipedia at the moment (I feel there are more WP:AE, WP:ARCA and WP:ARC-reports than ever before in my 19+ years here): the number of reader (and editors) shot through the roof after Oct 7, 2023, just a couple that I recently edited Al-Kabri: [7] Beit Iksa:[8] Al-Khisas[9] the page-views went up 3-10-fold even on articles not on the Gaza Strip. On Gaza it was dramatic increase: Beit Hanoun from ca 300 views pr month to 45,000 views [10]. So of course wikipedia will reflect this,
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.
Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- Thank you for bringing us a more specific request. Just to get out ahead: please keep statements concise and consider whether they add value here or would be better as evidence in a case (if we have one). Statements at this point should briefly state what you think ArbCom should look at in relation to these parties and what remedies would be helpful. Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al: Arbitrator views and discussion
- I was already of the opinion that we should take the above ARCA on as a case. The issues here are similar and intertwined, although I admit the framing here is a bit more precise. AE is pleading with us to do something, anything. We told AE they can send cases to us, let's follow through on our word and take this. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- There's some overlap with the above referral and this is further evidence that a case is necessary to examine and address these issues. - Aoidh (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is something that can be added to the above case. Z1720 (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Fold into PIA5. Cabayi (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)