|
|
|
||
| Line 366: | Line 366: | ||
=== Statement by [[User:QEDK]] === |
=== Statement by [[User:QEDK]] === |
||
The filer needs to |
The filer needs to drop the [[WP:STICK]]. This case has no merit. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|<span style="color:#793121">qedk</span>]] ([[User talk:QEDK|<span style="color:#732">t</span>]] <span style="color:#ffb7c5">愛</span> [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|<span style="color:#793121">c</span>]])</span> 15:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
=== Statement by {Non-party} === |
=== Statement by {Non-party} === |
||
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venezuelan politics | 29 March 2024 | 7/0/0 | |
| Off-wiki doxxing | 2 April 2024 | 0/4/0 |
Open cases
Currently, no arbitration cases are open.
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
| Case name | Closed |
|---|---|
| Venezuelan politics | 25 May 2024 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation | none | (orig. case) | 7 June 2024 |
| Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads | none | none | 4 June 2024 |
| Amendment request: India-Pakistan | none | (orig. case) | 27 June 2024 |
| Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions | none | none | 10 June 2024 |
| Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland | Motion | (orig. case) | 21 June 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. This page is for statements, not discussion.
|
Initiated by —S Marshall T/C at 10:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a case about Venezuela is called for. There's a longstanding dispute, we've exhausted the alternatives to Arbcom, and the community thinks we've got to come here. For example:
A case needs parties, and as the filer, I'm automatically a party, although I've never made a mainspace edit to an article about Venezuela. I've also joined NoonIcarus, who for the avoidance of confusion is the same user as Jamez42 who was sanctioned in the 2020 AN/I, and WMRapids the AN/I filer, as parties, because that's the immediate conflict, but I'm afraid I think there's more to it than just the parties. Rather, I hope to persuade Arbcom to accept a case with a more general scope, such as "conduct in articles about the 21st century politics of Venezuela."
I understand that SandyGeorgia has things to say about this and she's got a lot going on in her life at the moment, so if she indicates a desire to participate in the case, then please would Arbcom be kind to her about response times and word counts?—S Marshall T/C 10:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unfamiliar with the process for ARBCOM, but I agree that opening a case will help tackling such a complex dispute. It has been ongoing for almost a year now. I'll link other examples of archived discussions without admin action or even community participation:
Linking additional discussions for reference:
Opening a case would also allow the opportunity to consider general arbitration remedies (as Robert McClenon mentioned), particularly knowing this is an electoral year in Venezuela. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving another link:
Explanation about my evolution editing controversial topics over months and my hiccup with Sandy (sorry again). Plenty of users involved (myself included) have shared their unsympathetic POV towards the Venezuelan government, so leveling accusations of POV editing towards myself and others is unhelpful. Distracting discussions opened were mainly disputes between NoonIcarus,[1][2] Sandy[3] and I[4][5] (I have since stopped opening unnecessary RfCs). My RfCs were due to limited involvement in Venezuelan political topics and stonewalling.
I am slightly opposed to CT designation because:
As users become involved, we must remember to assume good faith, since I wish this had happened with me. We should wait and see if further problems arise with Venezuelan political articles.
Finally, as for word counts on noticeboards, I'm indifferent. Maybe if I saw more discussion on this, I could make a determination.--WMrapids (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When WMrapids originally brought NoonIcarus's edit behavior, with significant evidence, to the attention of AN/I, it became immediately evident to me that NoonIcarus should probably be editing elsewhere and I readily supported a topic ban. Despite some borderline bludgeoning behavior from one editor who collaborates with NoonIcarus, it became immediately evident that consensus concurred. Now, during this time I did not realize that NoonIcarus was actually a rename of Jamez42 - an editor whose battleground behavior and civil POV pushing was so frustrating I stopped editing articles they were active on. Upon learning this connection I was more certain a TBan was an appropriate remedy.
I cannot speak for the silence of admins in this matter but I can say, based on the evidence provided in AN/I that the only remedy needed here is to invite NoonIcarus to edit topics other than Latin American politics. I am somewhat alarmed that this arbcom request may have been created in part to muddy the waters and see that WMrapids suffers consequences for saying enough was enough regarding this long-term problematic editor.
Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep queries whether there is any community appetite for allowing uninvolved administrators to impose word counts (and perhaps sectioning?) at noticeboards on INVOLVED parties
. My answer is a firm "yes" to the word limits and only slightly less firm to the sectioning. I've been saying for years that the formal structure and word limits at AE are what make that venue so much more productive than ANI. Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At various points over the past few months I've been on the verge of filing a Venezuelan politics case request, specifically to ask ARBCOM to designate it a contentious topic and allow the use of AE to deal with problematic behavior. I held off largely because I would have been unable to participate in an evidence phase, and I wasn't sure if a WP:HORN-style request would be useful without examining the behavior of the current protagonists. It is possible the community may be able to handle the conflict between these two editors - indeed there was widespread recognition from uninvolved editors at ANI that NoonIcarus had engaged in persistent problematic behavior. However, Venezuelan topics have been consuming a disproportionate share of airtime at the noticeboards for a long time, with a lot of discussions finding problems but not reaching consensus. To me, this indicates the need for a CT designation, possibly preceded by an investigation into the principal actors. Here is a sampling of noticeboard discussions, in which a number of involved editors are exhibiting borderline battleground behavior, enabled in many cases by more experienced editors who are less involved. I note that NoonIcarus was warned or sanctioned in several of these, but is far from the only problem. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to mediate a dispute between WMRapids and NoonIcarus at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard about the Venezuelan opposition movement La Salida, which was at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_241#La_Salida. I failed this mediation attempt because there was also a dispute at WP:ANI between the same parties. This was a long-running dispute that is aggravated by battleground editing. I urge the ArbCom to accept this case in order to determine that Venezuelan politics is a contentious topic. I don't know whether a full evidentiary phase is necessary, or whether that determination can be made either by motion or by an accelerated procedure. The contentious topic procedure is sufficiently flexible that it can be a vehicle for imposing word limits on editors who normally write walls of text, or to impose similar restrictions. This topic area needs to be identified as a contentious topic by ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure I’ve ever edited a page dealing with Venezuela, but just working on other LATAM topics is enough to be well aware of this protracted dispute. A contentious topics designation strikes me as a helpful instrument for reining in the unchecked, time-consuming conflict that the community is otherwise struggling to manage here. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support Barkeep's [6] assessment: (1) Let the AN/I play out. (2) Impose word counts at AN/I. This is primarily about one editor: NoonIcarus fka Jamez42, and there appears to be consensus to topic ban him. The cases at AN/I cited by Vanamonde almost all involved NoonIcarus/Jamez42. If you look at those cases, there is an admin who was willing to rule on some of them. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my experience of restrictions/sanctions on the Israel/Palestine articles, I don't think CTOP rules would help in the Venezuela topic area. The problem isn't really disruptive behaviour but rather long-term POV pushing through selective addition or removal of content. My experience is that this type of behaviour has not been prevented at all by the ARBPIA restrictions and has actually been exacerbated by the removal of nearly all the editors on one side of the debate, which has allowed the other to impose their POV almost unopposed.
Given that there is currently a clear consensus on ANI to impose a topic ban on the editor that is in my view by far the worst offender of POV pushing on Venezuela and other Latin American politics (based on what I see go on on election and referendum articles that I have watchlisted), I'm not convinced an ARBCOM case is necessary at this stage. Number 57 19:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’d like to express my opinion on what SandyGeorgia said Special:diff/1216075304.
Adding content that failed verification into articles is a serious issue. If it’s deliberately done, it’s deceiving and is a problem of dishonesty.
People think the content is sourced. If no other editors bother to do the fact-check and cleanup, the content will stand and our readers will just think it’s true.
When the act of adding failed verification content is a lasting pattern, it absolutely shouldn’t be tolerated, as it’s detrimental to the neutrality of an article.
We’re lucky enough that we’ve some faithful editors to check the likely dishonest / makeup content added, and tagging them for failed verification one by one. But when the same thing happens again and again, it’s very exhausting, and this greatly affects the work of our good editors (who want to improve articles instead of doing endless cleanup plus dealing with endless disputes hopelessly, and seeing the quality of articles deteriorates) and may have them leaving the project dishearteningly.
Similarly, adding back the “Failed verification” banner to top of article *after* the issue’d been resolved and adding back problematic content, without engaging on talk, is showing the same potentially disruptive editing pattern and same problems of dishonesty, which are exhausting the time / energy of good editors.
I believe the above is just a tip of the iceberg. IMO polite POV pushing can have a very profound effect on article quality and should be dealt with seriously. Given that it affects the whole topic on Venezuela and not just 1 or 2 articles, I believe an ArbCom case is warranted.
Further, I saw a tendency of casting of aspersions and failure to assume good faith as shown by WMrapids, which is astonishing to me. SG hasn’t been active for nearly 3 months and NoonIcarus replied to my post on her talk page with words like “Stay safe. My best wishes”. This was interpreted by WMrapids as “interesting that SandyGeorgia began editing again at the same time this ANI was opened and became involved after NoonIcarus contacted them”, Special:diff/1216007573,
while SG had already mentioned in the same thread that “mostly-break since early December when two of my closest friends died coincidentally on the same day, and I knew that I could not reasonably deal with serious grieving and WMRapids' editing at the same time.” Special:diff/1215958846
After I told them their problem Special:diff/1216010524, WMrapids replied that, “the timing is curious ... which will be usually emailed ... I am more concerned about NoonIcarus' gamey behavior due to their history of unconventional canvassing” Special:diff/1216025170
Keep on describing a message expressing Wikilove to a WP:Missing Wikipedian as “gamey behavior” and/or “unconventional canvassing”, and that they’re *more concerned* about that than another Wikipedian’s real life tragedies ... is just a totally unacceptable explicit example of failure to AGF. If this kind of mentality persists during their interaction with other involved editors who’ve views different from them, I can imagine how exhausting and disheartening it can be.
This is a time sink. The issue is better fixed sooner rather than later. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC); 07:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Enforceable word limits at noticeboards would be extremely welcome (not just AN/ANI, but the village pumps and the other main ones as well). Endless bludgeoning and walls of text are the main reason threads spiral out of control/don't get the necessary resolution, and at ANI at least, it rarely gets pushback because of the reputation of the WP:Great Dismal Swamp. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been slightly involved insofar that I've been involved in various WP:RS/N discussions (example [7]) . I've chosen to mostly stay out of WP:AN/I discussions because the walls of text and the history that I find off-putting. Over the last couple of years, through my observations of RS/N and AN/I discussions, it has become apparent to me that Venezuela is a contentious topic area. I hope that ArbCom through its deliberations will specifically list it as such. TarnishedPathtalk 13:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By my reading of the ANI thread, there's an open proposal to topic-ban NoonIcarus that appears on the path to succeeding. Unless someone can make the argument that there's other things that need to be dealt with, it seems like that would resolve things and make ArbCom involvement unnecessary. Also, as an aside, the filer here, S Marshall, made the first reply to that proposal, saying No. Proposals are needed here but it's best if they come from uninvolved people.
(the proposal was made by WRapids); presumably that rejection is part of why he thinks an ArbCom case is necessary. But I don't think that is true - it's entirely normal for proposals like that to come from involved people. It may not always be the best idea tactically (if their proposal is intemperate it opens them up to a boomerang) but they have the option to do so, and it's important that they do because it's also a fact that involved people are often the ones with the most impetus to keep things moving forwards. A proposal still needs a consensus to achieve anything, so their biases in opening it don't matter. And given the (currently) lopsided support for this one it seems like it was reasonable. I can understand the concerns about detectable brigading
, which, if true, is more serious, but that ought to be decided by a closing admin; and either way, the fact is that the RFC is currently so lopsided that it's hard to see it mattering - the fact that so few people have opposed it is telling and suggests that beneath all the wordiness this isn't actually something too complex for the community to resolve. --Aquillion (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Queries re Barkeep49 13:04 at ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moneytrees: are you proposing a specific sanction applying to all editors working in a particular topic area, or are you suggesting that the community should have a discussion to see if there is consensus for such a sanction? isaacl (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not involved in the dispute in question and don't edit this topic, but please, no word limits at ANI. That page is a venue of last resort for issues that other more formalized dispute resolution processes fail to resolve, or which don't fit neatly into those processes. Almost by definition it's a mishmash of issues that don't take well to formality and structure. It's visibly a dysfunctional free-for-all, frequently resolves issues through mob justice, and has created an unstable favouritism of editors with social capital, but what definitely won't make any of that better is tone policing in the form of word limits, as is being proposed here. This won't bring order, it will bring distracting side arguments about whether or not word counts have been violated, which themselves will probably be too long and will also not help to resolve any reported issue.
Besides, it will be impossible to enforce. The page has very consistently rejected clerking and imposed moderation. This will only raise the temperature of already hot arguments, without any corresponding increase in illumination. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this was my first AN/I, and over it, I learned a bit about how these sorts of discussions are conducted (and made a few mistakes on the way). Frankly, the sheer length of the the discussion made it hard for me to get a good overall picture of what was going on, or participate in general. I think taking this to ARBCOM was a good move, and I hope they can do a better job untangling this whole mess than I did. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I have closed the ANI thread with the following sanction: NoonIcarus is indefinitely community topic banned from Latin American politics, broadly construed. The ArbCom case request and, if opened, pages directly relevant to the case are excluded from the TBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I came here today to actually argue in the ANI against a topic ban for NoonIcarus, to discover I'd arrived too late. An indefinite topic ban for a generally diligent editor on the basis of some very minor infractions (specifically, being overly finicky in adding "failed verification" tags) seems bizarre and excessive to me. While NoonIcarus should have been sanctioned in some way to cool off the edit warring with WMRapids, it seems clear to me that this was beef between two parties who both behaved problematically while also being dedicated to the WP project. Specifically, WMRapids, who has some valuable strengths as an editor, has a tendency to rapid reverts, sloppy referencing, POV wording, and casting aspersions against other good faith editors who happen to disagree; this clearly goaded NoonIcarus who also reverted too rapidly in response, leading to deadlock. Sanctioning one party only, and indefinitely, is an unfair response to this. A far better response would be to recognise Venezuela as a contentious editing area, similar to Ukraine or Israel/Palestine, and impose more rigorous behavioural guidelines on all editors there, e.g. tighter revert limits. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No weatherman is needed to see which way the wind is blowing, so I'll not comment on acceptance or not. I concur with comments above that a CT regime is not necessarily going to resolve issues (also worth highlighting the US post-1992 politics CT regime applies to many parts of this topic already). I would, however, note that I disagree with some of the general commentary that appears here and elsewhere over the recently closed AN/I dicussion; to my reading, all participants were fully aware that there was a longer, convoluted history - this was not simply an issue of mistagged citations. What was crucial to me in terms of my support for a TBAN was the (different) ways in which the parties* in dispute reflected upon their actions, the comparative length by which their actions had been problematic and the extent to which those actions had required previous intervention. But it was the first element that I placed greatest weight upon in reaching my decision. *(Obviously, but so there is no mistake, I am not talking about S Marshall) Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)
Venezuelan topics have been consuming a disproportionate share of airtime at the noticeboards for a long time, with a lot of discussions finding problems but not reaching consensusparticularly persuasive; it seems regardless of the number of actors involved at present, this issue is sucking up community time without any meaningful improvement to behaviour in the topic area. At present I am leaning toward acceptance. firefly ( t · c ) 17:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Initiated by TheSpacebook (talk) at 22:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A AN noticeboard, and an AN incident was closed down, and JPxG refused to concede, even thought most editors agree that I did not engage with doxxing.
To clarify, I am against doxxing, and I have never engaged in doxxing. I recently suggested a new BLP policy which would omit the exact location data of notable individuals Wikipedia pages, as I was concerned that musicians Beyoncé and Jay-Z both had their address written in their articles. And the article about their home was titled with their address. I have never encouraged doxxing or applauded it.
For context, I was blocked for canvassing for one week whilst the discussion was ongoing, but was quickly reverted after a few other admins on Wikipedia and some users on Wikipediocracy deemed this block to be unreasonable, so the block caused tensions to increase. I later admitted I did engage with canvassing and acknowledged what I did wrong, and said it wouldn’t happen again. Doxxing occurred on a thread that I opened which I discussed my block, but I didn’t engage in the doxxing and the doxxing was immediately met with fierce condemnation within the forum. I ignored all doxxing. I applauded a message which notified the forum that an admin had unblocked me, the post read Floquenbeam unblocked TheSpacebook
. I couldn’t do anything about the doxxing, so I ignored it. It seems out of place for an applause emoji in the mists of the mass condemnation of doxxing.
I have been falsely accused of giving assistance to and applauding someone else of doxxing someone with the user I am seeking dispute resolution as they persist on this false allegation. JPxG said in a title on the Admin noticeboard:
Are people allowed to just open Wikipediocracy threads for backup when they get blocked for canvassing on Wikipediocracy, as well as assistance in doxing the admin who blocked them?
I applauded a post which said I had been unblocked by an admin, however JPxG alleges in his first post in the sub-thread: where some guy [doxxed] and TheSpacebook's reaction seems to have been to post a clapping emoji
[17]
This claim has since been widely refuted as being completely false by many other editors (including other admins), and another admin has now redacted JPxG’s false statement, and warned others to not reinstate this false accusation.
Here is an example of another editor confirming that this allegation was completely false, saying I can't see that TheSpacebook was involved in any doxxing. WPO member Vigilant did the doxxing.”
([18])
However, later seemingly clarified that I wasn’t “explicitly” involved with doxxing someone, which suggests I may have implicitly involved. Should admins be throwing around these covert-semantics which are extremely serious and damaging allegations to make about someone? [19]
Due to the serious nature of the allegation that was made about me, and the possible covert suggestion that I implicitly did it, question is this: Is this how admins are expected to behave, is it in line with their responsibilities to publicly make false accusations about other editors?
And then alleged: I do not think it is a false accusation to describe "TheSpacebook's post in the thread two posts after a post" as "TheSpacebook's reaction" to the post.”
[20]
With a number of people refuting his claims:
with one user saying Well, it's a fact that Spacebook's post was not reacting to the the post two previous to it. I am looking at the thread right now and Spacebook quotes the post that they are actually reacting to - which is five posts previous, and is simply a link to Floquenbeam unblocking them.
[21]
and another saying Yup. We don't always realize it but we all know how this works because we've all been there: you scroll through a thread, you read something, you hit "reply" and reply to it, your reply appears at the bottom, but you haven't yet seen what is below the post you're reading -- between the post you replied to and your reply. Then when you keep reading, you realize your reply comes after something else and now it looks bad in context.
[22]
I then opened this up as an admin noticeboard incident, with the closer saying, in part: yes, it is clear from the context that the accusation that you applauded doxxing is false and I would encourage people not to make or repeat any false accusations.
[23]
I am seeking a resolution, as after this closed, they persisted and opened up a thread about this titled with the extremely long title Are people allowed to just open Wikipediocracy threads for backup when they get blocked for canvassing on Wikipediocracy in which, two posts after some separate unrelated Wikipediocracy user, who is not them, and is instead a different person, doxes the blocking administrator, they post a post, in such a manner as does not necessarily entail approval or direct response, consisting of a clapping emoji, formatted as a reply to a different post in the thread, but nonetheless making the casual implication (not the strict definition of implication as employed in formal logic) that they, the user who started the thread, did not see fit to comment on the post doxing the administrator?
here: [24]
The resolution I’m looking for is that JPxG is not allowed to harass me any longer about this issue and that they stop falsely accusing me of giving assistance to doxxing.
I have apparently now also been doxed in the Wikipediocracy thread under discussion, so my desire to participate in this dispute overall is waning.
It was impossibly stupid of me to post the original AN thread instead of submitting evidence privately. It was also very stupid to continue the argument for as long as I did prior to disengaging.
My general impression is that if I am in an argument, and another administrator leaves me a talk page note with the section title 'friendly advice', this means it is time for me to shut up and abandon the argument; ideally I would have stopped long before this point, and failing to do so was extremely dumb. I have no plans to interact further with the complainant, and apologize for the inconvenience.
While my phrasing may have been vague, and I was/am willing to amend my comments, I would prefer not to repeatedly accused of lying (and would appreciate if people look at the diffs of what I said and read the actual words; i.e. claiming a sentence said a thing was true when it actually said the thing was false).
If the Committee would like me to provide any additional information, I would be glad to provide it.
I urge the committee to decline as this is premature and seems to be blown way out of proportion as a result of JPxG's frustration and unwillingness to drop the stick. I don't see how this isn't something that the community can handle. If there are continuing issues between these two editors, surely the community can solve them. We haven't really been given much opportunity to do so and I believe that a (temporary) two-way interaction ban prohibiting both parties from mentioning or communicating with each other would end this specific issue. Noah, AATalk 22:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest banning OP at this point, since I've seen their name come up all day at the drama boards. When even I notice someone appear in my watchlist that often in such a short space of time, it can't be a good sign. Acalamari 23:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no involvement in this case, but I have been observing some of it. TheSpacebook:
TheSpacebook, I strongly recommend you disengage and walk away from this incident. To the committee, I recommend you decline this case as wildly premature. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I think we're being trolled. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in any context, a good-faith editor with no block history should generally be warned before blocking, which was not done here, unless the misconduct was both serious and obvious. Lifting the block did not require resolving the dispute over whether TheSpacebook had or had not violated the letter or spirit of WP:CANVASS. (I have opined before that our anti-canvassing policy is often problematic and could benefit from rethinking, but that is not the stuff of an arbitration case.)
If this case is accepted, one aspect of it needs to be how external criticism websites and their interaction with Wikipedia has changed since MGO/ATK. (I don't consider SCEorWTC to fit here for this purpose; SCE was about a group doing its best to edit within Wikipedia guidelines and WTC revolved around Discord.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 23:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fucking hell. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur entirely with Hurricane Noah. I recommend that this case be speedily declined as premature, and I recommend a temporary interaction ban between the parties. Both parties are escalating this conflict; both parties need to take a walk. Having extensively interacted with the filing editor on article expansions and on their talk page, I believe they are an enthusiastic new editor with a fair grasp of policy who could have a lot to contribute to the project, but they are currently running headfirst towards an indefinite block. TheSpacebook needs to learn how to assume good faith, be patient, and only escalate disagreements to the appropriate venue (within-wiki) when absolutely necessary. They are not making new mistakes; they are repeating the same ones. To stop burning editors' goodwill, they should rush to demonstrate that they have the competence to accept and learn through their inexperience. Expressing a desire to withdraw this case, if possible, would be a good place to start. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 23:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich seems to think (possibly sarcastically, possibly not, I’m unclear) that this is my fault for undoing GN’s block of the filing party. Maybe I’m a party? But I think that, if an uninvolved admin were to be allowed to interaction ban these two editors, the problem could be solved. The spacebook is an expert in being his own worst enemy, and is becoming indistinguishable from a troll, but I don’t think they are. They should follow the advice of multiple, multiple editors to drop the stick. But just blocking the newer editor would be a mistake. JPxG has acted in a manner inconsistent with being an admin, but I’m thinking maybe this is a one off, and maybe if i-banned they would get the message. —Floquenbeam (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DNFTT.—S Marshall T/C 23:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't have any thoughts on the merit of the request, I think it's pretty incredible that we're still going with the narrative that a user who's been around for less than a month, blocked twice for unrelated reasons, and is currently at the centre of canvassing and doxxing allegations relating to posts an off-wiki site known for harassing Wikipedians, is a good-faith contributor who is here to be a net positive. This is either trolling or disruptive editing to the point of being indistinguishable from it. Giraffer (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This should be swiftly declined as it is something that can be resolved at ANI, whether it is an interaction ban between the parties, or a NOTHERE block for the OP for wasting the community's time. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has to be the most ridiculous request ever heard in the halls of ArbCom. The user is clearly unable to drop the stick, but frankly that should have been something resolved with a block of the filer of this case (which still isn't a bad idea), not an ARC on JPxG, who acted, in my view, in good faith. Meanwhile, the filer of this ARC has exhausted all of the community's good faith that can be given, and should have been boomerang'ed by now. Of course, WP:DENY comes into this, like S Marshall says, and I don't honestly get why this is being seriously entertained, given the filer is clearly unduly escalating this dispute way farther than necessary. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The committee should decline, obviously, since we've not reached "last resort" territory. That said, I don't think TheSpacebook is trolling. Their filing here was procedurally wrong, not substantively so. JPxG made some false accusations against TS and wouldn't fully back down from them. I would have been incensed, and if I had been newer I might have start a premature ArbCom case request. I'm happy to see JPxG stepping away voluntarily, and given the serious concerns on all sides (doxxing, BLP vio, etc.), I would urge us all to call these missteps what they were and move on with no further action. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Few things on Wikipedia surprise me anymore, but I'm a wee bit surprised that the filer hasn't been indeffed yet. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This case is all too similar to the case filed a few days ago by Thinker78 in that it is a complaint by a user who was blocked and is bitter about the block. Maybe the filing editor hasn't noticed that Thinker78 will probably be banned, and, if not, sanctioned in some way. The filing editor is in any case fortunate that Requests for Arbitration are one of the very few forums where the boomerang principle does not apply. That is, vexatious litigation doesn't result in a block by ArbCom, but vexatious filers usually wind up being blocked for their conduct anyway. ArbCom won't warn User:TheSpacebook, but they should take the comments of other editors as a warning. I respectfully disagree with editors who think that the filer is trolling. I think that the filer is being a serious vexatious litigant. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ScottishFinnishRadish puts it well. I think this is just a case of an admin making an oopsie and the wronged party over-milking it rather than letting it recede in the rear-view mirror.
On a side note, maybe there should be the explicit possibility of a boomerang for vexatious case requests? Recent history suggests having an apparently repercussion-free space for general grievance can invite requests that end up sucking an awful lot of time and effort. Bon courage (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, why hasn't TheSpacebook been reblocked yet? It seems like a clear cut case that they're not here to build an encyclopedia. They're obviously wasting our time with this, and indeffing them would stop wasting our time. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 08:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the parties have exactly covered themselves with glory here - but this probably doesn't really need Arbcom to sort this out. It just needs both parties to acknowledge that if they continue to demand satisfaction, then the one thing that will be guaranteed is that neither will get it. Perhaps trouts all round (and perhaps Arbcom can have a quiet chat to T&S and/or legal about off site harassment and what can be done to discourage it).Nigel Ish (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per NYB, Yeah, I think we're being trolled. Per Black Kite, not only by The Spacebook. Had just this edit—this single edit—been made by any ordinary editor, who had already had a bizarrely-titled thread (which itself had already needed a redaction!) closed by an admin, they would have been blocked immediately. Feet would not have touched the ground. Not because it's harmful, but because, like most low-level trolling, it demonstrates contempt for both everyone else in the conversation and for their volunteer time and energy. ——Serial Number 54129 11:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either we are being trolled, or they lack the competence to be here. Either way, this is disruptive to the point that it exceeds the threshold necessary for an indef block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur entirely with ScottishFinnishRadish.
This will be the second time today that I'm going to suggest that the filer of a case request should read WP:CAPITULATE; the first was directed at an editor who shortly afterwards was banned by the community. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The filer needs to drop the WP:STICK. This case has no merit. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)
inappropriateand
strongly discouragedwould have helped a more fully considered decision to be reached regarding the block. I think jpxg repeatedly raising the stakes in order to make his point about canvassing and doxxing was not what I expect from an administrator. I think beyond any errors that could be forgiven as a new editor, TheSpacebook has bludgeoned that conversation and otherwise attempted to raise the stakes themselves numerous times. However, TheSpacebook is not an administrator and absent an administrator conduct case involve JPxG, I do not think TheSpacebook's conduct rises to the level of ArbCom. The only question for me is whether there is cause for an administrator conduct case against JPxG because that's all that the community would need arbcom to handle. I will wait to see if any further evidence is submitted about that, but if none does I plan to vote to decline this request as a series of mistakes in a single incident. To quote some oft used arbcom principles,
occasional mistakes are entirely compatiblewith adminship and administrators are
not expected to be perfectand that's what would seemed to have happened here. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was impossibly stupid of me to post the original AN thread instead of submitting evidence privately. It was also very stupid to continue the argument for as long as I did prior to disengaging.sums up their portion of this mess nicely, and their submission here displays the self-reflection we want to see from advanced permission holders. Floq's statement
They should follow the advice of multiple, multiple editors to drop the stick.aligns with my feelings about TheSpacebook - please listen to the advice you have received - but like Barkeep49, I do not believe that aspect needs ArbCom involvement. Absent any revelatory new evidence I am planning to vote to decline this later today. firefly ( t · c ) 08:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
