| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| An admin advising another user to deliberately introduce errors | 1 July 2024 | 0/5/0 |
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: Palestine-Israel articles 3 | none | (orig. case) | 24 August 2019 |
| Clarification request: Editing of Biographies of Living Persons | none | (orig. case) | 3 November 2019 |
| Clarification request: Antisemitism in Poland | none | (orig. case) | 14 November 2019 |
| Amendment request: American politics 2 | none | (orig. case) | 18 November 2019 |
| Clarification request: Antisemitism in Poland (2) | none | (orig. case) | 19 November 2019 |
| Amendment request: Antisemitism in Poland (3) | Motion | (orig. case) | 26 November 2019 |
| Amendment request: The Rambling Man | none | (orig. case) | 28 November 2019 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Use this section to request clarificationoramendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)
{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.
Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Initiated by Zero0000 at 13:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "Deletion of new articles by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required." literally says that non-extended-confirmed editors may delete new articles. This was certainly not the intention. To remove this ambiguity I suggest the insertion of one word: "Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required."
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I also doubt there has been actual confusion. I see this only as a little bit of cleanup that should be carried out on the principle that rules should really say what everyone assumes them to say. Zerotalk 18:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, has there been actual confusion because of this ambiguity? It doesn't sound likely. And if there was, should this be folded into the pending case on this topic area? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:21, 24 August 2019 (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 amendment request or provide additional information.Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4
Initiated by TonyBallioni at 21:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Buffs is currently interpreting WP:ECP to state that admins must either declare protection is for disruptive editing, or apply it under DS. He has taken to requesting logging of ECPs on BLPs at WP:AELOG based on the ruling at WP:NEWBLPBAN. I am requesting the committee clarify whether the practice of using the standard Twinkle drop down Violations of the biographies of living persons policy requires logging at WP:AELOG if it is not intended as a discretionary sanction and it complies with the rest of the policy at WP:ECP. The committee could also clarify whether all actions taken to enforce the BLP policy are under DS or whether the current practice of enforcing it as normal admin actions is fine. I'm sorry to bother you all with this, but since all of his user talk contributions going back 2 weeks amount to a super-literal policing of the use of ECP, I'd prefer the committee clarify this before it gets any further. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While the ECP of Joe Girardi was short-lived, you still need to log your actions here per the ArbCom ruling on BLPs. Please do so. Buffs (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)} (diff)
If you are invoking protection of the article because it's BLP]], you need to log such actions here. Please do so.(diff)
Therefore, it you are citing WP:BLP as your rationale for WP:ECP, it seems to me that you're applying it due to DS, not DE.(diff).
Well, that's a terribly biased and misleading interpretation of events.
First of all, to state that "all of [my] user talk contributions going back 2 weeks amount to a super-literal policing of the use of ECP" is beyond a stretch of the truth. In the only two specific instances he mentioned to me on my user page, the first had no rationale listed whatsoever. I asked for clarification and reminded him that, if it was under DS, to file it in the appropriate logs (even going so far as to provide a link to make it easier should that be the rationale). He stated that he probably overstepped where the protection needed to be. In the other, I asked for clarification and the Admin apparently felt it WAS under WP:DS and filed it under the logs as he should do so. In both instances, I felt such actions were appropriate and it was handled as it should have been.
Second, yes, I've asked for others to be more clear and, if necessary, to log such actions in accordance with ArbCom directives. In most instances, an admin says "hmm...you have a point there" and it's either clarified, clarified and logged, or any of a number of other actions which amount to 
Done. To demonize all such conversations as super-literal policing of the use of ECP is beyond what anyone could objectively say is an accurate summary of events and is quite uncivil, IMNSHO.
Third, it seems quite obvious that the requirements for DS and ArbCom decisions are not being properly logged. You need to look no further than the first page of over 1800 ECP'd pages to see that there are dozens of pages under ArbCom rulings that are not logged anywhere. When notified, most admins go "Gee, you have a point there. I'll fix that!" Some have dug their heels in and said "No, I'm not going to do that". I haven't pursued such actions beyond a one-on-one conversation because of ongoing ArbCom discussion and clarification that's already underway. Bringing this here seems to be an attempt to end-run around that discussion. Buffs (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where Buffs gets the idea that discretionary sanctions has anything to do with the ECP policy
I don't see the problem with the rationales as they are
If ECP is applied as a discretionary sanction, the admin should say so and log it...
it's not always the case that ECP is applied as a DS.
If it isn't, a standard rationale of 'persistent sockpuppetry' or 'persistent vandalism' or 'violations of the BLP policy' (and so forth) is sufficient for me.
The extra "paperwork" he is seeking is a solution in search of a problem.
...some of these confirmed users would go on to disrupt articles that were not protected at all...
I would also want the parties involved to understand that actions needing to be logged are not made ineffective by a failure to log.
The appropriate response in most cases will be to simply WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM – add the log entry yourself.
My understanding is that ECP (30/500 protection) can be applied by an admin in either of these cases:
In the first case, another admin must not change the protection as it is a discretionary sanction, and the action should be logged. The second case is a normal admin action which can be changed by another admin, and there is no log but pages are automatically listed at WP:AN. See the ECP RfC. Applying ECP is like any admin action—it might be reasonable to ask an admin why they had taken the action. However, it should be assumed that the first case applies if and only if mentioned in the edit summary. Admins have to take a lot of actions and requiring a discussion should be rare. In the second case, if there is reason to think that page protection should be reduced, ask the admin to do that or make a request at WP:RFPP. Johnuniq (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like the others who have posted, I suggest that Buffs drop this matter. The extra "paperwork" he is seeking is a solution in search of a problem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Buffs appears to want to make it one. No thanks. Guy (help!) 10:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to my own protection cited here, the Kurdish set of articles had been a haven for socking-based disruption from confirmed accounts for months before I finally had to apply ECP to a set of related articles, to the relief of regular contributors. Anyway, some of these confirmed users would go on to disrupt articles that were not protected at all, so the formality of semiprotecting those articles first just so they could be immediately ECP'd seemed redundant to me. El_C 16:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So why not block the users? You're just pointing out the flaw in your argument here— well, I did, at first, but as I recall, the volume proved to be too great. El_C 03:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some overlap with the items being discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Workshop, to follow up on my comments there: uses of page protection that are not explicitly related to active arbitration should be dealt with in standard community venues. If the use of protection outside of remedies has truly risen through dispute resolution without a solution emerging it should be dealt with as its own case and not shoehorned on to an old case that primarily dealt with behavior over a different issue. — xaosflux Talk 18:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having been involved in the original discussion (and in fact I was the one that suggested that the WP:AN notification be required. Credit goes to MusikAnimal for the hard work though) on implementing ECP as a discretionary measure I would note that the whole point of the notification list at WP:AN was precisely so that there was a log of all ECP's that were levied, irrespective of what they were levied for. Requiring admins to log it elsewhere _as well as it being automatically logged at AN_ is just a box ticking exercise which adds virtually no value. Blackmane (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Blackmane: while logging of discretionary sanctions for this situation is a pretty tiny benefit for most instances (how often are these sanctions modified?), due to the rigid rules surrounding arbitration enforcement, it's still welcome. isaacl (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, and it is automatically logged to AN; 3) admins who have placed ECP as discretionary sanctions but not logged the actions in the DSLOG should be asked to do so; 4) admins who appear to have placed ECP outside of the scenarios allowed at WP:ECP should be asked to clarify their reasoning and/or modify the protection level; 5) admins who have placed ECP as per the "semi-protection has proven to be ineffective" scenario should not be required to also manually log the action. Does this seem to cover it? GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Initiated by My very best wishes at 22:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
According to the Article sourcing expectation remedy [81], "The sourcing expectations applied to the article Collaboration in German-occupied Poland are expanded and adapted to cover all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions."
The question. Does that sourcing restriction covers only content on the "Polish history during World War II (1933-45)" or it covers any other content that appear on the same page where anything related to the Polish history during World War II was mentioned? For example, there is a page Gas chamber. It includes a section about Nazi Germany that seems to be related to the Polish history during World War II [82]. However, it also includes sections about other countries, such as North Korea [83], USA and Lithuania [84]. Would these sections also be covered by such sourcing restriction? Meaning, should the section about North Korea be removed?
In other words, can content completely unrelated to Poland be removed based on this sourcing restriction, as in this edit (note edit summary)? Note that the page in question is not about Poland, but about Gas chamber. It only includes some content related to Poland.
Why. I am asking because the subjects related to other countries often have only a limited coverage in RS and were not subjects of significant scholarly studies. A lot of subjects are simply not science.
I would also suggest an amendment. I think this sourcing restriction for Poland should be removed for the following reasons:
| Responses |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
@Paul Siebert Paul wants to make this removal. In this edit Paul removes everything referenced to works by historian Nikita Petrov (a publication in Novaya Gazeta), to Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, to historian Lydia Golovkova, to a book by Mikhail Schreider who was an important witness to the crimes by the Soviet NKVD, to a book by Petro Grigorenko who was one of the founders of the Soviet dissident movement, and to publications in Kommersant which is arguably an RS. These so called "non-scholarly sources" tell essentially the same as "scholarly sources" (ones that remain on the page after his edit), however they provide some additional important details and corroborate the entire story. @JzG Who thinks it would be a bad thing if this were applied over more articles or sections? That would be any reasonable person, because we have WP:NEWSORG as a part of WP:RS for a very good reason. And that depends on which articles and sections. If subject X has been covered in a huge number of sources, including academic ones (or this is a purely scientific subject, rather than magic), then such restriction might work OK, even though excluding journalistic sources could violate the balance and work against WP:NPOV. However, consider one of sub-subjects related to Human rights in North Korea, let's say Kang Chol-hwanorLee Soon-ok (I would like to stick to the same example). There are no sources about them beyond publications in good journalistic sources like BBC and a couple of human rights reports. Personally, I prefer good journalistic sources. Or consider a notable movie covered only in multiple journalistic sources and Rotten tomatoes. @Assayer. Discussing "whether a particular source was reliable, whether a particular author was qualified, and whether a source is being misunderstood or misrepresented" is normal process. RSN did not "fail to settle these questions". It worked just fine, as it should, and provided some advice from the participants and uninivoled contributors. |
@Worm. Enforcing WP:RS would be great, but you want it in WP:AE setting to sanction people. Therefore, you need to establish very clear rules which would be obvious for everyone. This is nearly impossible. Even something as simple as 1RR/3RR causes a lot of confusion. A more complex "consensus required" remedy caused more harm than good in AP area. But this is even a more complex restriction. A lot of sources are not inherently reliable or unreliable. Their usage should be discussed on a case to case basis and be decided per WP:Consensus. In other words, to impose such restriction you should answer the following questions:
The bottom line (in my opinion). Arbcom and admins should not change the "five pillars". That restriction changes rather than just enforces WP:RS policy (and adversely affects the WP:NPOV by default). My very best wishes (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
However, if you absolutely want to keep some restriction, I think Nick-D get it almost right (I omit only his first phrase as too ambiguous):
"Preference should be given to peer-reviewed scholarly journals and books. Other reliable sources may be used to augment scholarly works or where such works are not available."
It seems the request was inspired mostly by this.
Briefly, My Very Best Wishes' edits of the Gas van article are heavily dependent on questionable primary sources (an RSN discussion of one of key sources used by MVBW can be found here). The "Soviet Gas Van" topic is based literally on few sentences taken from one tabloid article, which were reproduced by several secondary sources, and handful of testimonies, part of them state that "Soviet gas van" was used to incapacitate victims before execution, not to kill them, and some of them say that NKVD documents the whole story is based upon cannot be trusted. For comparison, this article about Holocaust in Yugoslavia performs detailed analysis of real and perceived cases of gas van usage in Holocaust, and concludes that some witness testimonies should be treated with great cautions, and usage of gas vans to kill non-Jews is, most likely, a post-WWII myth. As compared with that article, the sources telling about Soviet gas van look like a school student essay.
A comparison of sources that tell about Nazi and Soviet gas vans demonstrates that the level of fact checking and accuracy are incomparable. In my opinion, combining poor sources telling about Soviet gas van and good sources telling about Nazi gas van is tantamount to combining articles from Physical Review Letters and popular schientific journal for kids in the article about Uncertainty principle: the level of sources should be more or less uniform in articles, otherwise we just discredit Wikipedia.
Second, I found the MVBW's rationale (the subjects related to other countries often have only a limited coverage in RS and were not subjects of significant scholarly studies
) very odd, because he is literally advocating inclusion of questionable sources to support some exceptional claim (the claim that gas vans were invented and used in the USSR is exceptional) because this claim is not covered by multiple mainstream sources. In other words, the argument against inclusion of this material is used to support inclusion of poor sources.
Third, during the discussion of the Collaboration in Poland Arbitration Case I already proposed (01:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)) sourcing restriction as an almost universal solution for conflicts in EE area. It already has had positive effect in Holocaust in Poland area, and I am 100% sure expansion of sourcing expectaions on whole EE area will quench lion's share of conflicts. At least, the long lasting conflict around the Gas van story will immediately stop is this criteria will be applied to that article. Importantly, in contrast to various topic bans or 1RRs, which are totally palliative measures, more stringent sourcing criteria really improve quality of articles and quench conflicts.
Comments on MVBW's comments
--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Brief reply to comment by Paul Siebert below, a comparison with my most recent proposal demonstrates MVBW's statement is FALSE: I do not propose to remove Solzhenitsyn. Other two sources are primary, and per WP:REDFLAG they cannot be used for such exceptional claims, and the newspaper article just briefly repeats what other sources say. In general, editorial style of MVBW can be characterized as manipulation with poor sources to push certain POVs. A typical example is this edit, where MVBW added one primary source and one newspaper article, each of which provide the identical text. Although the latter may formally be considered as a secondary source (more precisely, op-ed, per NEWSORG), the author does not comment on the cited memoirs, so there is no analysis, evaluation or synthesis (which are necessary traits of any secondary source). In other words, MVBW uses a primary source to advance some exceptional claim, and he duplicates the source to create a false impression of wider coverage of this topic.
I think this behaviour deserves more detailed analysis of ArbCom, and I am going to prepare and submit full scale case, because the discussions on talk pages and various noticeboards aimed to convince MVBW to abandon this type behaviour lead just to repetition of the same arguments, which MVBW ignores.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Assayer: RSN has failed to settle these questions
, actually, as our ongoing discussion at WP:V talk page with SarahSV demonstrated, the burden of proof rests with the user who adds a source, and that includes the proof that the source is reliable. That means consensus is needed not to remove a source, but to keep it. Actually, no consensus was achieved to keep that source during the RSN discussion you refer to, so that source can be removed. That can be done even if without additional restrictions, but applying such restriction would facilitate that process dramatically.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@François Robere: In the case of newspapers, per WP:NEWSORG, one has to discriminate news, editorials, and op-eds. If sourcing restrictions allow reliable primary sources, then editorials are ok.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This question was already posed at WP:AE#Gas_Van_and_sourcing_requirements — I closed it with (nominal) consensus that restrictions in topical articles do cover untopical sections therein. Mind you, the question became moot with the article having been split into topical and untopical entries. El_C 01:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a thorny issue. If the presence of the section Gas_chamber#Nazi_Germany requires the entire article Gas_chamber to be subject to the same strict Antisemitism-in-Poland sourcing expectation, then the section Gas_chamber#North_Korea would have to be deleted, as is it entirely sourced from newspapers and first hand witness accounts. Alternately Gas_chamber#Nazi_Germany would have to be split out into a separate article Nazi gas chambers (which currently redirects to Gas_chamber#Nazi_Germany). --Nug (talk) 05:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've not been involved in the particular discussion mentioned here, though I have been involved in the topic area and the ArbCom case that resulted in the sourcing restrictions subject of this ARCA request. The discussions span four articles: Gas chamber, Gas van, Nazi gas van and Soviet gas van. Two of these were split[87][88] from the main article[89][90] - splits which may or may not be justified on content grounds, but which were done during an ongoing discussion on sourcing, raising the concern that they were done to avoid the sourcing restrictions placed on the main article. I've reverted all of them while discussion is ongoing,[91][92][93] and asked for clarifications on the main TP.[94] François Robere (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The core argument here seems to be that because something is covered only in questionable sources, we should relax the sourcing requirement to allow it to be included from those questionable sources. I think I'm reading that right.
I don't think it needs ArbCom to tell us that's a terrible idea.
What are the restrictions, you ask?
Who thinks it would be a bad thing if this were applied over more articles or sections? Given the abundance of excellent sources covering these topics and this timeframe, anything that does not appear in sources of this quality is very likely to be WP:UNDUE even if it's not POV-pushing. Guy (help!) 00:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the pragmatic thing to do here would be to apply the sourcing restrictions to (i) content regarding Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland; and (ii) sections of articles which relate exclusively or primarily to Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland.
This would mean that on the Gas chamber article, the restrictions would apply to the whole of the Nazi Germany section (as that section is primarily related to Polish history during WWII), but not other sections of that article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Antisemitism in Poland case found, that much of the evidence and thus much of the dispute, centered on disputed sourcing and use of low-quality sources, specifically, whether a particular source was reliable, whether a particular author was qualified, and whether a source is being misunderstood or misrepresented. The dispute which fuels My very best wishes’ clarification request is very much of the same kind. RSN has failed to settle these questions, in part because the sources are largely written in Russian and there are few uninvolved editors able to read them. The sourcing restrictions imposed on the article Collaboration in German-occupied Poland have been found to have had a positive effect by stabilizing the article and limiting disputes. Since the Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism is a highly controversial and a much disputed field, content on Stalinism that is raised and connected to Nazism within an article largely dealing with the Holocaust in Poland should not be exempted from these restrictions, and these restrictions should certainly not be removed altogether.
I may note that not only is the article gas chamber, which should provide some sort of overview, an ill-conceived example for the urgent need of detailed information. The way My very best wishes expanded [100] the article basically by copying huge chunks of text including notes from the stand-alone article - all the while knowing that the “invention” of gas vans was disputed[101] - is quite revealing as is the way they put the sections “in a chronological order”[102], effectively ignoring the Nevada gas chamber of 1924. Nevertheless, quick research turns up better sources for Lithuania and North Korea, sources which would meet the high-quality sourcing restrictions. Thus, the use of better sources would improve the encyclopedia.--Assayer (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mkdw: I think what you write would work fine, except that I would add (for completeness) that whatever is summarized from the WWII/Poland related sections elsewhere in the broad article (e.g. in the article's introductory paragraphs, in a table grouping data from several sections of the article, etc), irrespective of whether such summaries carry their own references or rely on references elsewhere in the article, would also be subject to the strict sourcing requirements of the "Antisemitism in Poland" ArbCom case. Similar for Standard appendices and footers, e.g. a "Further reading" section should not list literature of a lesser quality on WWII/Poland topics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been active on Wikipedia since 2005 with a focus on World War II, and for as long as I can remember our coverage of Poland, and especially 1920s-1940s era Poland, has been a deeply troubled topic area. I think it's entirely sensible to require a strict adherence to WP:RS as an attempt to ease these problems. I don't see any reason for good faith editors to struggle with this remedy: it might slow them down, but they should be pleased that it will result in better quality articles. As I have noted at WT:MILHIST#Implications of recent ArbCom case for content creation on WWII Polish topics I wouldn't support this kind of restriction being rolled out more broadly, but in unusual circumstances like this it's a worthwhile experiment. Nick-D (talk) 09:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am wary of any topic specific polices at the best of times. But when it is loaded with subjective criteria (As this is) I start to get very alarmed as to intent. I have no issue with "peer-reviewed scholarly journals", but what is an "academically focused book"? As to "reputable institutions", who decides this, what is reputable (and why is a newspaper not a reputable institution?)? This is all too fuzzy and ill defined for me. I find it odd that it did not just read ""peer-reviewed scholarly journals or works by recognized academics".Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure about "recognized institutions", it would be best if we stuck to as narrow a definition as possible. One answer may be "academic institutions", but may still be open to abuse.Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Worm That Turned, I do not think that adding works by recognized academics
is a good idea. Take this source. It is a set of lecture notes, yet an editor is arguing that he should not have been sanctioned for adding it (and some worse sources) because the scholar is well known. Such sources are not reliable and should not be used, but this change would open the door to using them. This would make the sourcing restrictions effectively meaningless. I also think that the phrasing or published by recognized institutions
needs to be tightened, as at the moment that same user is using it to argue in favor of using a newspaper, and it was indeed understood to include them by Sandstein. This was not the intention and the wording needs to be changed to "reputable historical/scholarly institutions" or something like that.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The wording was too rigid. Making a sharp division between academic and no academic sources is not necessarily helpful--there are multiple works in any field that defy easy classification, and also many works not strictly academic that are of equal standing and reliability. Nor is being academic a guarantee of reliability--I mention for example Soviet Lysenkoism and Nazi racial science, both with high national academic standing, and, in the case of Nazi science, considerable international recognition. I'd suggest a much more flexible wording Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions. and works of similar quality and responsibility". Considering the examples given in the request, I think that this would deal with much of it. Newspapers, however, are a more difficult problem, and the responsibility of content of serious topics published is newspapers is variable. Depending on the topic covered, I think there is no reason not to use them, if they are used with caution, and for some related topics, they may be essential. I'd would perhaps say Newspapers andmagazines can be used ,but with caution and agreement, and in context..
I understand the felling of the arbs who have commented that this is too early to make the change, but I think the original conception was overly simplistic, and would impair rational consideration of sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been following this and the original case with interest. I have plenty of experience with disputed sourcing in ARBEE from my work on Yugoslavia in WWII articles and have never once thought this level of ArbCom intervention was needed. I am fundamentally opposed to this remedy because it enters into content areas, and the arbitration process exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia conduct disputes, not content ones. If ArbCom wants to get involved in content matters, then it should ask the community for the scope of ArbCom to be expanded and receive that imprimatur before sticking its oar into content areas. We have a perfectly serviceable reliable sources policy, and questions about whether a particular source is reliable are determined by consensus, supplemented by outside opinions via RSN and dispute resolution mechanisms like RfC if a consensus cannot be arrived at between the regular editors of the article in question. As has been noted above, if the editor that wants to use a source cannot get a consensus that a source is reliable, it cannot be used. The Article sourcing expectations remedy should be voided as it was made outside the scope of ArbCom's remit. If article sourcing guidance beyond WP:RS is needed for a particular contentious area, it should be developed by the content creators who actually know the subject area, not by ArbCom. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Initiated by Atsme at 23:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Awilley is a good admin trying to accomplish good things but is going about it the wrong way. He has inadvertently misused the tools and created more disruption than he's resolved. His bias is sometimes obvious but not consistently so. He takes unilateral actions based on his customized DS which has lead to POV creep and specific DS for specific editors as he sees fit. He is micromanaging AP2 and controlling the narrative by lording over editors. His experimental undertakings and ominous presence have a chilling effect. The following diffs will demonstrate the depth of his involvement and why ArbCom needs to modify/amend AE, particularly with reference to the issues mentioned herein. Note: I pinged only the few admins mentioned in the diffs below, but do not consider them or any of the editors named to be involved parties.
Awilley said: Me just now: "Hey Google, define gaslighting."
My phone: "Gaslight: manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity."
I don't think "gaslighting" is an appropriate word to describe most garden variety disputes that pop up on Wikipedia's talk pages, if that's what you're trying to get at. ~Awilley (talk)
Atsme responds: No, actually I believe you should have referred to WP:GASLIGHTING instead - then you would have recognized what the others were doing to me. Atsme Talk 📧 10:29 am, 25 July 2019
Ivanvector explained: Retarget to Wikipedia:Gaming the system#Gaming the consensus-building process (the section directly below the current target) which specifically mentions gaslighting as a separate bullet point. In fact it's already listed as a shortcut for that section, not the one it currently targets. I suspect someone just made a mistake. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 1:37 pm, 26 July 2019, Friday (3 months, 30 days ago) (UTC−5)
Awilley replies: "Doh! I should have seen that. I even went so far as to do a search for a more appropriate target, which wasn't very helpful since it brought up the current target and a bunch of AN/I-like pages. Please feel free to speedy close this with the if that's a thing around here. (I can do the retarget myself.)" ~Awilley (talk) 2:00 pm, 26 July 2019, Friday (3 months, 30 days ago) (UTC−5)
GorillaWarfare, if Awilley’s misunderstanding of gaslighting is not the reason in your view, then what is exactly? Slippage into past behavior is technically not a reason. What policy did I violate? What behavior was disruptive to the point of t-ban worthy? Please be specific because the diffs provided do not demonstrate disruption or behavior worthy of a t-ban when what I was saying led to an apology, an RfC and the proper outcome in an AfD wherein I was being bludgeoned. I am even more confused now than when I started and would very much appreciate your naming a t-ban worthy violation. Does an admin saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT apply as a valid reason to call an editor’s consensus building discussion disruptive behavior? I really need to know the policy I violated so I don’t repeat the behavior. Atsme Talk 📧 11:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"an administrator whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'."
Summary table of custom sanctions | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Examples of custom sanctions from other admins |
|---|
|
I have previously criticized Awilley's special discretionary sanctions as complex and arbitrary. In response, Awilley deprecated the anti-filibuster sanction as too complex. Anti-filibuster sanction was this: In talk page discussions you are limited to 3 initial posts, then 1 post per 24-hrs. In threads specifically for voting you are limted to 1 post.
Imagine having to count that for highly active editors. You'd have to WP:HOUND pretty hard to see it enforced.
Well, good that is was deprecated. But the principle of giving this much discretion needs to be evaluated. Being this customizable and complex means it's hard to enforce them in an even way. It is also interesting to see that the special sanction for Snooganssnoogans was negotiated away. Special discretion is like entering the King's court and seeing if he, on this occasion, wants to give you sanctions 1, 2, 3 and 4 or if you can strike a side-deal. Needless to say, the situation would be unworkable if all admins had their own set of special sanctions. --Pudeo (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes there is a need to make sanctions a little flexible. But to avoid confusion, this needs to be kept very close to the standard parameters. I understand Awilley's desire to find sanctions that might possibly be more effective than the standard. But this is not really the sort of thing that is fair to the subjects of these sanctions --or even those threatened by such sanctions-- when done by individual experimentation. Very reasonably the enactment of DS by Arb Com the last few years has been in the direction of greater standardization, instead of the earlier experimentation case by case. Even as a committee we learned not to try to be too inventive. Dispute resolution needs a stable environment. DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
| Can be discussed in a separate request if needed. My very best wishes (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I think Arbcom should establish a limited set of standard discretionary sanctions to be used by admins. Simply saying "any reasonable measure" here is not good enough. I am not saying the sanctions by Awilley were bad, outside discretion or unreasonable. To the contrary, I think you need to look at them and decide if something Awilley suggested can be used as a basis for the new standard DS, in addition to 1RR, page protection, etc. You might also look at the "consensus required" restriction used in AP area. However, I think that one should never be used, based on the amount of confusion and infighting it caused. My very best wishes (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] |
There are at least two uncomfortable "amendment request" bedfellows here. Both DGG and Pudeo, perhaps also MVBW, seem to be getting Awilley's bog standard topic ban of Atsme from Anti-fascism broadly construed mixed up with Awilley's "special discretionary sanctions". The topic ban Atsme is appealing here has nothing to do with those special sanctions, but was simply placed per the AP2 discretionary sanctions. DGG has previously criticized Awilley's special sanctions roundly, compare User talk:Awilley/Discretionary sanctions, passim but especially recently, and so has Pudeo (but I'm not going to dig that up). They are perhaps so interested in the special sanctions that they can't resist posting about them here. Indeed, Atsme also alludes to Awilley's special sanctions: "Admins should not be permitted to create their own DS, or micromanage a topic area by imposing unilateral actions against editors for violations of DS that are not specifically defined in ArbCom Remedies". And yet this request is framed as an amendment to (= a lifting of) Awilley's indef T-ban from Anti-fascism broadly construed. If getting that T-ban lifted is Atsme's goal here, then Awilley's special sanctions are neither here nor there, for the T-ban is not based on them, and people should stop confusing the arbitrators by bringing them up. If, on the other hand, Atsme primarily wants to complain to ArbCom about Awilley's special sanctions, that is a much bigger subject, which should not be mixed with an irrelevant T-ban request. She may wish to consider posting another, separate, ARCA request about the special sanctions.
For my part, I find Awilley's detailed rationale for the topic ban persuasive. It is largely based on Atsme's own promises and undertakings when she successfully appealed a previous, broader, topic ban from the entirety of the AP2 area. People believed those undertakings, and therefore accepted her appeal.
(Parenthetical note: Atsme has also listed Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins and Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability under "Clauses to which an amendment is requested", but I'm going to assume that was accidental, and due to the constraints of the ARCA template. Atsme surely knows that it's not for ArbCom to amend Wikipedia's policies, and merely meant to say those policies support her request.) Bishonen | talk 14:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I'd like to make a couple of indirectly related points here. First, Atsme, an ARCA where you are appealing your own topic ban isn't the place to demand an examination of Awilley's actions. Second, with respect to specific sanctions; I can understand the desire to make our sanctions regimes as simple as possible. However, it is worth noting that a specific sanction is often created because the only reasonable alternative would be a much broader sanction. I have on numerous occasions proposed specific sanctions because they were the only workable way to allow an editor to continue to be productive, and because the alternative responses were draconian. As such, if we move away from user-specific sanctions, I think we will inevitably see more frequent and more severe "standard" sanctions being applied; so y'all might want to think about what you're really asking for. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I won't say much, based on the assumption that the Arbs will take 5 minutes to look at Awilley's AE sanction notice and the diffs he included in it, look at Atsme's promises made in her February appeal, and quickly realize this was a measured, restrained use of DS. Reimposing the original full AP topic ban would have been justifiable, but no good deed goes unpunished I guess.
If the committee wants to consider Awilley's specialized DS, that should probably be a separate clarification request; it has nothing to do with Atsme's appeal, because this is a bog-standard topic ban. But per Vanamonde, preventing such specialized DS's will likely just lead to more admins using a full AP topic ban instead. Which - as in this case - might not be a bad thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This topic ban appeal seems to consist almost entirely of poorly substantiated or completely unfounded attacks against the admin who imposed the sanction. Atsme goes so far as to accuse Awilley of "creepy stalking", which is an appalling—and, again, completely unfounded—personal attack. And she's presumably on her best behavior in this venue. I don't see any compelling rationale put forward to lift the topic ban, and this appeal reinforces more general concerns about Atsme's suitability as an editor in the American-politics topic area.
As for Awilley's custom discretionary sanctions, while I sometimes disagree with his application, he deserves a few dozen barnstars—and ArbCom's unflinching support and gratitude—for being willing to try something in a topic area that most admins have long since abandoned to belligerent partisans. MastCell Talk 22:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've spoken with Awilley numerous times and believe he is trying to do the right thing by making tailor-made sanctions and restrictions. But have also seen a number of admins say this is overly complex and difficult to enforce. I am definitely more in favor of an admin who imposes highly specific sanctions that do not eliminate the editor from similar areas within the same topic where they are not causing issues. Lastly, I do not see any reason to sanction Awilley but definitely think Atsme has previously been targeted for relatively minor issues by the same admins that defend far worse activity from editors they share biases with. I mean, it couldn't be more obvious if one was slapped in the head with a trout and frankly, I think its despicable.--MONGO (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Winged Blades of Godric...I think a careful review of Atsme's comment indicates she was NOT saying JzG had themselves made unilateral actions in the arena in question. However, when we have admins who so voraciously state their peculiar absolutism as far as what qualifies as referencing (even though said references have repeated been found by the consensus of the Wikippedia community to be reliable), their opinion invaribly carries more weight due to their admin status, for better or worse. Opinion crowns with an imperial voice, sadly.--MONGO (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First things first, Arbcommers: deprecate the use of "special" / "custom" sanctions, preferably by motion (although noting the discussion below). The whole point of discretionary sanctions is that they level the playing field in contentious areas while treating all editors equally. A unique set of sanctions that may or may not be used does precisely the opposite. Damoclean; or imagine, if you will Thomas, Lord Stanley waiting in the wings at Bosworth deciding which way the chips will fall...
——SN54129 14:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was pleased to find myself missing from AWilley's 29 October 2019 pschitt list.
Can Atsme's TBAN be appealed anywhere other than at ArbCom at this point?
Concerning "Gaslighting": I've seen this term a lot on en.wp over the years, starting probably with SageRad at AE in 2016 and most recently in the exchange between GorillaWarfare and Kudpung on the latter's campaign page for election to the body who will decide this case, if it is taken.
I'm a little hesitant to read AWilley's initial call to delete WP:GASLIGHTING as a "cover-up", but I do think that AWilley does have some problems discerning red & green when observing concerted activities across Wikipedia spaces (mainspace, talkspace, usertalkspace, WPtalk-space, and in disciplinary spaces like this one). Still, the ensuing deletion discussion was interesting.
I get how the "having a reputation developed for you" game works. I've been blocked twice by Awilley (which is actually a significant percentage of their blocking activity), and am, in addition, the recipient of one of his special dispensations. As he says, he doesn't enforce them, they're just little brooches of dishonor we're encouraged to show our wiki-friends at AE parties.
I think that, as Katie has suggested, ArbCom should look into how DS are being used and perhaps just as importantly how they are not being used. I will, time permitting, add to the evidence page once/if one is opened. As often, I seem to be awash in evidence. ^^ In short, yes, Awilley's enforcement in AP2 might well tend towards the arbitrary & capricious, from my point of view. The rules themselves are pretty good, of course.
In the larger context of DS-misuse, I suppose I could appeal Kingofaces43 v. SashiRolls (I & II) soon. I was not very successful in appealing Sagecandor v. SashiRolls (I & II) to ArbCom back in the day. There are some notable similarities (and differences) in the two prosecutions. I suppose that the path to irredeemability would begin with pools of tears at AE, rather than at ArbCom?
Still, I do think Atsme is right to raise the question of the mixed reception and enforcement history of Mr. Awilley's special and less special discretionary black marks, since he took over the templating of AP2 from Coffee. If ArbCom chooses to look into that aspect of this case in conjunction with—or separately from—Awilley's TBAN of Atsme, I'll add some diffs. I first looked into this because I like Atsme. I've commented because I'm not absent from the context of the diffs above (e.g. [105]), though I'm not involved in the discussions surrounding antifa.
🌿 SashiRolls t · c 12:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I commend AWilley for making this a narrower ban than I would have argued for. My experience with Atsme is that she is delightful but given to devoting furious energy to lost causes. That was true when I first encountered her at G. Edward Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where she was arguing that we were suppressing Laetrile as a cancer cure; it was true in the GMO case; it has been true in numerous recent disputes around American Politics. At WP:RSN, she referred to the "Russian collusion conspiracy theory", a Fox News talking point. That may be an indicator as to the root of the problem, I don't know. It's pretty clear by now that the right wing media bubble does not share a common fact base with mainstream sources, and that's always going to prove difficult on Wikipedia, especially right now - and I have to confess that does cause me to wonder about the advice she might be giving people via OTRS, if she still has access.
I invite the arbitrators to review the history of Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks, notably it's early version almost wholly the work of Atsme here. This is a response to a one against many dispute here. It may be summarised as: when large numbers of people disagree with you, it's probably because they are all colluding to push an agenda. As far as I can tell, nothing has changed since then.
Example: this edit] to her ACE guide for 2019 switches from Support to Oppose 15 minutes after a sitting arbitrator expressed support for this sanction. Yes, you're allowed to do that, but the inference is clear: your qualities as a Wikipedian depend on how closely you agree with Atsme. That is the mentality expressed in the "advocacy ducks" article and the talk page debates that led to the sanction.
Atsme can be lovely, a delight to be around when not on a hot button issue. She gets very passionate about things and has a hard time accepting when consensus is against her. She can be too prone to ascribe opposition to bias, and attempts to talk her down from the Reichstag as harassment. I think the further away from our US politics articles she stays, the happier she will be, especially in a climate where, as seems likely, her preferred sources are operating on an entirely different factual framework from Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 14:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, I would go and look through more (from [107]) but I have to pack as I am away this week singing. Fairness is important to me here. I do not want to bury Atsme further, only to show a long history of tenaciously arguing against consensus for including criticism of right-wing groups and figures. From my experience of Atsme the TBAN is proportionate and a net good for both us and her. Guy (help!) 10:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme:- Can you please point me to a few of JzG's administrative actions, under ACDS, in APOL? ∯WBGconverse 16:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two things:
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.
would rather put my t-ban on hold, and focus on the bigger issue which is highly problematic—there is no need to put anything on hold, especially given many people (yourself included) have already put a lot of time and effort into this discussion. You can open a separate discussion about the custom discretionary sanctions at any point. I understand if you'd rather not do a whole request from scratch, after already putting effort into writing this one—if you'd rather just copy the relevant portion of your statement below to a new request it would be fine by me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That was true when I first encountered her at G. Edward Griffin, where she was arguing that we were suppressing Laetrile as a cancer curebut did not include any diffs that would allow those of us who are unfamiliar with that incident to go familiarize ourselves. I can certainly go look for it, but it's best if you provide the diffs to avoid any doubt that I'm looking at the right argument. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slippage into past behavior is technically not a reason.Slippage into the same behavior that led to your original topic ban is absolutely reason enough for an administrator to reinstate a topic ban in a subsection of the same area. In fact, Awilley specifically noted when he granted your appeal that "backsliding into behaviors that led to the ban will result in further sanctions". Diffs were provided along with the topic ban. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Initiated by Piotrus at 04:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
The Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations remedy from the recent case seemed like a good idea at a time. When I thought about the restriction passed, I thought it would reinforce WP:BRD: someone (re)adds a problematic reference, they get reverted, their source is discussed on talk or at WP:RSN, and they are warned that they should not re-add it or such until a consensus is reached. A sort of 1RR for problematic sources, particularly in case of WP:REDFLAGs.
However, this recent AE ruling, where an editor (User:MyMoloboaccount) was blocked for a week in about an hour after the request was made, for restoring a problematic source or two, with no discussion on talk anywhere, just a straight report and near insta block, gave me a major pause. It is good to require editors to use quality sources; there is a ton of bad sources to be weeded out, and adding more low quality ones needs to be discouraged (I habitually remove low quality refs and there's a lot of garbage in this topic area: ex. [108], [109]). But discouragement should not be achieved by a wiki equivalent of nuking people for small infractions. Now, I have personally written hundreds of articles related to this topic area, and I am speaking with my content creator hat now: the above AE ruling has made me scared of creating any new topics in this area, expanding them or even of reverting problematic edits by likely socks/SPIs. Because if one can get a week long block for a first infraction with no need for an explicit warning, this is an invitation to create a battleground populated by said socks/SPIs, and in a short while we will have nobody else editing this topic area.
If one can get blocked for a week+ in an hour after adding a borderline source, this opens a major can of worms. Sure, we can all agree that some sources like personal webpages, blogs or forums are unacceptable, but there are plenty that fall in a gray area, and I find it scary that a single admin is now not only apparently empowered to decide what is reliable or not, bypassing prior talk consensuses, RSN and such, but per DS could even impose year blocks and topic bans of up to a year at a whim. Let me illustrate this with some practical example of what has been used in this topic area.
In the linked AE thread, for example, a newspaper was among the sources reported as 'bad', through the closing admin judged it acceptable. That was for Rzeczpospolita (newspaper). But which other newspaper will make the cut and which will be seen as not reliable? If someone uses a more controversial paper like SieciorDo Rzeczy as a source, will they get a week long block? A year long topic ban? For the first infraction? What about an article from a news portal like Onet.pl? Can a city portal be used to reference information about unveiling of a local monument or celebration of a remembrance event? Or a March of the Living coverage? Yes, newspapers and such are not the best sources, but are they now a gamble with a potential block or ban? Is an average admin that does probably does not speak Polish empowered to make such calls based on what they see in an English Wikipedia article on a Polish newspaper, magazine or portal (if one event exists)? If it mentions words like controversial, right-wing, left-wing, or whatever is it that they see as a red flag, it's ban hammer time?
More examples. In my talk post at Talk:Home Army where I reviewed some sources recently challenged on that talk page (and that were shortly after discussed in that AE thread) I noted that I think course notes by a reliable academic are probably ok. Apparently, they are not, since lecture notes are not peer reviewed. Ok. How about [110], a source used in recently created Warsaw Ghetto Hunger Study (by the same editor who made the complain about said course notes...)? That appears to be a non-peer reviewed lecture delivered at an unspecified place (I have attended such events as a grad student and later, they can be very informal and address a room of <10 people). Ban editor for using such a source or not? What if someone cites a popular history magazine such as Histmag? Reliable or not? Toss a coin? How about a source published by Institute of National Remembrance? That institution has been criticized for some recent politicization (as described in the article body), what if the reviewing admin decides that an editor using this source, until now generally seen as acceptable, merits a ban because they find the criticism section in the IPN article convincing and feel that IPN is no longer a reliable source? How about articles from a a museum website? How about an educational website maintained by IPN, like [111]or[112]? How is it better than the course notes that were ruled 'not good enough'? Did I mention popular history magazines? IPN publishes several (pl:Biuletyn Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej, pl:Biuletyn IPN „pamięć.pl”). What about a portal like [113], which contains information on Polish Righteous Among the Nations, co-financed by by Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but also by a controversial NGO associated with unreliable Radio Maryja? Is that portal unreliable because it received financing from a problematic NGO? Even if it is unreliable, an average editor using it may not even be aware of the connection. Block people because they didn't investigate who funds a website sufficiently? I am an academic and an editor experienced in this topic area and in finding reliable sources myself, yet I didn't even realize some of those sources were problematic until someone else pointed it out (that a magazine I assumed was peer reviewed might not be, or that this website received some financing from a shady NGO). Can a website about local tourist attractions be used a source to note that some World War II fortifications survive as said tourist attractions ([114])? How about websites on shipwrecks? I recently became aware of articles like List of shipwrecks in August 1941 that use many substandard sources ([115]). If someone adds a source like this about a Polish WWII shipwreck, how many weeks of a block are they looking at? Shortly after the ArbCom case closed I asked one of our milhist ship experts to create an article on a minor ship SMS M85, and he replied that "I think that the recent Arbcom ruling on articles associated with Poland in WW2 makes writing an article impossible." He created it nonetheless, but if he used a less then impeccable source (perhaps [116] that I see in German minesweeper M18 (1939)), would he be looking a ta block? Is using a site like [117] to reference some non-WP:REDFLAG technical details about a ship or another minor detail a major offense now? How about if the article I created on Japanese pilot Naoshi Kanno was Poland-related? I referenced his appearance in an anime series to a source or two that another editor objected to ([118]). If it was a Polish pilot, would I be blocked now? Topic banned for a year, perhaps, if it was my second or third infraction?
I hope that the above illustrate clearly that the entire Poland WWII topic has become a minefield now that very few editors will dare to edit until this issue is clarified. In particular, we need to know the answers to:
My constructive suggestion is to revise this remedy to make sure that this applies only to editors who have been warned and who engage in edit warring restoring bad sources. In other words, I think that editors should be allowed to add or readd any sources they wish, but once they have been made aware that there is an issue with a source they added through a talk page message, then a 0RR rule should apply pending an outcome of a RSN discussion that the editor who challenged the source should start. If, after made aware that a source is under review, they restore it, then they can be reported to AE. This should be done on a source basis, not editor, i.e. if an editor adds one problematic source, and few weeks later, a different one, it should be treated as separate case, not as a repeat violation (unless it is the same source). Further, an AE ruling in such a case should be not to block an editor for a first infraction, but to add the problematic source to a dedicated blacklist for this topic area. Only editors who re-add a source from said blacklist, after being made aware of its existence through a DS-like warning, should be eligible to being blocked (in practice, one should get warning "you added a source from this blacklist, if you do it again or add any other source from it you may be subject to escalating blocks and bans). To block editors for a first violation, when a source's reliability is often unclear and can merit further discussion, seems like a major battleground escalation, ignoring BDR, and encouraging editors to report their 'opponents' to AE in hope of a quick block. And yes, given the borderline and difficult to investigate nature of many sources, we need a blacklist that specifically states "this website/book/author are bad", because otherwise people will be blocked for plain ignorance or a simple mistake ("you reverted a likely sock that among other edits removed a problematic source. One year topic ban for you. Sock wins. Move on".
I end this with a reminder that I am a content creator and a professional writer, familiar with RS on and off wiki, and in my professional opinion anything more restrictive than the proposal above will create a chilling effect and a major battleground, with editors reporting one another for innocent borderline sources, until no-one is willing to touch this content area with a 10-foot long pole. Remember the adage about good intentions, please. It's enough to look at recent history for Home Army. I am a long standing, experienced contributor, and right now I am abandoning this article, and all related, to likely socks/SPI who have nothing to lose. And I am not going to revert anyone, I will just consider reporting them to AE, since any other course of action is an invitation to get myself blocked. Maybe they will gut this and other articles, removing bad sources, good sources, and whatever else they want, but I am frankly scared or restoring anything, if it is up to a semi-random admin to decide that maybe I merit a year-long topic ban because I added or restored a single borderline source. Is this the type of editing environment this remedy was meant to foster? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Molobo cannot make a statement as he is currently blocked, unreviewed appeal pending.
PPS. There is also a simple date error with this finding that I raised here (date 1933 should be 1939). I don't think that merits a separate thread.
-->
I was not notified of this request, even though I am listed as involved. This is an appeal of an enforcement action couched in the terms of a clarification request. It should be dismissed because, per applicable policy, only the sanctioned editor may appeal an enforcement action.
In fact, MyMoloboaccount is trying to make an appeal on their talk page, but hasn't said in which forum they want to make the appeal. Maybe an admin can help them out with that. The question of whether I was right to block MyMoloboaccount should then properly be discussed in the course of that appeal.
As to the broader point raised by Piotrus that it is not a good idea to make individual admins decide which sources are inadequate and therefore blockable, I don't really have a view. It's for ArbCom to decide whether such a measure is necessary in this topic area. I assume they chose to do so after careful consideration because the normal method of determining the appropriateness of sources through consensus has failed. But the authority given to admins here isn't really any broader than under discretionary sanctions, which already apply to the topic area. Sandstein 16:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mymoloboaccount has been here long enough to know better. [120] is a flagrant misrepresentation of the source. Mymoloboaccount is lucky to have received only a one week block for this. Guy (help!) 11:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Molobo is well aware that their editing is seen as problematic, see here. Their current arguing over the block only demonstrates either a lack of understanding of what a reliable source is, in which case competence issues seem present, or else willful disregard for it. There is no reason to hollow out these requirements because you're "scared". Molobo's block is, if anything, a sign that they are effective. He is fully aware of the remedy and the block, having participated in the case, and he's been here for years and years, so he ought to have a better sense of sourcing anyway.
If you have concerns about other editors' edits, you are also free to report them. The hope was this would clean up the area. Relaxing the restrictions would undermine this goal.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In general, users who are new to Wikipedia or to a topic area aren't blocked immediately upon infringing on a rule - they're notified and asked to participate in the TP, as it should be. Molobo isn't either - he's familiar with the topic area, took part in the ArbCom case,[121] and later used as justification for an edit.[122] He's well aware that his edits are problematic - I can count at least six editors and two admins who expressed their concerns about him, in his presence, in several fora.
Editors who regularly discuss their edits, and who do not engage in source misrepresentation or needless edit wars - and I count Piotrus and myself as two - should not feel threatened by these DS. While we in theory we could be served with DS without prior warning, in practice it doesn't happen often.
As for the "chilling effect" of the sanctions: the ArbCom case subject of this amendment request had two editors T-banned, who after the case were blocked (one indef). ANI and AE cases resulted in another editor T-banned, and two more blocked. Another editor, who was already T-banned, postponed her appeal. Five editors were "left standing", but they are joined by a handful of editors who frequent the TA less often, and an unknown number of editors who edit in specific articles or on specific issues. All in all, anywhere from 5-15 editors are active in the topic area at any one time (not counting copy editors, reference fixers and bots), some of which have only become active in the TA after the ArbCom case. In short, there's no evidence of a "chilling effect" on the regular editing activities within the TA. François Robere (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As written, this sanction is incredibly vague - it could be argued to apply to almost any subject associated with either the Western or Eastern front in World War II - any area where Polish forces fought, any ship that served with the Polish Navy or with the German navy at the start of the war, any piece of military equipment in service during the German invasion of Poland or the Soviet campaign - and demands that only academic sources be used - a standard that is well in excess of anywhere else on Wikipedia, and if applied strictly will make it impossible to edit in many areas, including most of Military History, as someone can always argue that a source isn't academic enough and demand that the content it supports must be removed on pain of an Arbcom block. Statements by Arbcom members on the case above make it clear that the ruling is expected to be applied widely. This has a clear chilling effect and makes a mockery of Wikipedia being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, as it means that only someone with access to a high quality university library and with the backing of a large bunch of supporters who can support them at Arbcom. Nigel Ish (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nigel Ish. This remedy does have a chilling effect and is an impediment to those who don’t have access to a university library.
Articles published in academic journals necessarily present new and/or novel perspectives on some topic, the dissemination of these new viewpoints to other academics is the raison d'être of these journals. As such a particular article doesn’t reflect the main stream view, but the viewpoint of the author, by definition a minority viewpoint at the point of publication. It is only when that article is cited by other articles and books that we can get a measure of the acceptance of that viewpoint. It must be noted that the peer review process in history journals isn’t intended to provide a measure of acceptance or endorsement of the view, but, as Anthony Grafton from Princeton University puts it, to assure the authors are not out “wearing their magenta socks”, i.e. to assure themselves their article doesn’t contain glaring mistakes in presentation.
Arbcom has always been about conduct, not content, and proscribing the sourcing of an article is surely not what Arbcom should be doing. Wikipedia already has mechanisms in place to deal with sourcing, and whether to impose stricter content source rules on a particular topic area should really be the decision of the wider community via a RFC.
A way forward in this case would be for Arbcom to suspend this content related remedy pending an outcome to a RFC to the wider community. --Nug (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems Nigel Ish and Nug are talking about totally different subjects. Indeed, I concede what Nigel Ish's arguments are partially reasonable: it may be problematic to find, for example, some technical characteristics of some concrete WWII time battleship in peer-reviewed publications. However, it is equally hard to expect a hot dispute about that. In contrast, the Holocaust in Poland topic is an area of incessant conflict between two POVs, both of them are strongly politically motivated and, they seriously affect some national feelings. Obviously, the worst POV-pusher is using the worst sources, and the best way to stop an edit war is not 1RR or "Consensus required", and not even topic bans. The best way to fight against POV-pushers is to deprive them of their main weapon - their sources. Which sources national POV-pushers are using the most frequently? Some obscure books, local newspapers, questionable web sites. If such sources are not allowed - the conflict ends.
Regarding Nug's『This remedy does have a chilling effect and is an impediment to those who don’t have access to a university library.』Exactly. If you want to write about such a sensitive topic as Holocaust - go to a local library, find good sources - and write. Jstor provides a free subscription (several articles per month), some journals are free, google scholar provides citations - those who want to write good content have a lot of tools. If, instead of that, they prefer to collect various rumors at the very dark recesses of Internet, then WP:NOTHERE is the only option.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: I got a much better idea: if some source has been cited by peers, and the references can be found via google.scholar (or some other scientific/scholarly search engine), such a source can be used. This is the approach I myself use (I very rarely use sources that cannot be found by gscholar or jstor search), and this approach was recognized as good in this peer-reviewed publication, which is specifically devoted to the analysis of content disputes in Wikipedia. With regard to newspapers, there is currently a discussion about a modification of that part of the policy, and it seems a consensus is that only very reputable newspapers are "mainstream newspapers" (good sources per WP:V), and even for them WP:NEWSORG should work, which means editorial and op-ed materials are primary sources about author's opinion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With respect ot the specific request here, I agree with Piotrus that the wording was too rigid. Making a sharp division between academic and no academic sources is not necessarily helpful--there are multiple works in any field that defy easy classification, and also many works not strictly academic that are of equal standing and reliability. Nor is being academic a guarantee of reliability--I mention for example Soviet Lysenkoism and Nazi racial science, both with high national academic standing, and, in the case of Nazi science, considerable international recognition. I'd suggest a much more flexible wording Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions. and works of similar quality and responsibility". Considering the examples given in the request, I think that this would deal with much of it. Newspapers, however, are a more difficult problem, and the responsibility of content of serious topics published is newspapers is variable. I wouldn't rule them out entirely, but I don't know quite how to word it. {Possibly '"and other responsible sources bywide general agreement . ) DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What of the "casual" editor of one of the articles to which these restrictions apply - by that I mean someone who is not deeply involved within the narrow confines of the subject, but adds what they believe to be helpful content from a source that would be OK elsewhere in Wikipedia? How would such an editor know that these restrictions apply or, even, how to comply with them? If the casual editor is going to be sanctioned, how does this fit with WP:GOODFAITH? Surely a central principle of Wikipedia is being subverted in order to control a few rogue problem editors. Feel free to point out to me if you think I have misunderstood (but me saying this emphasises the apparent complexity of rules with draconian penalties).ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So these restrictions should only apply to persistent and knowing offenders who ignore warnings.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This should be a request for amendment. I think this sourcing restriction should be removed and never used again for the reasons I explained in my request. The discretionary sanctions already existing in this subject area are more than sufficient to handle any problems.
A lot of scenarios have been developed, where scores of unsuspecting editors are going to be blocked immediately for using anything other than peer-reviewed scholarly studies. This amounts to scare tactics without actual evidence that these threats are real. But, as a matter of fact, RSN and dispute resolution mechanisms like RfC often fail when it comes to certain disputes about whether a particular source is reliable or not. I can name various examples of questionable sources which were determined acceptable and reliable, including interviews with convicted Holocaust perpetrators commenting on “Operation Reinhard”. Instead of discussing abstract scenarios and opening loopholes, the question thus should be: What is the objective of these restrictions? Is this objective acchieved? --Assayer (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience there are two main arguments to fend off a more restricted use of sources, e.g. of scholarly sources only. According to the first argument even primary sources are admissible when they are used for “uncontroversial”, “factual” information which may not be covered by scholarly sources, but is allegedly needed to provide for a “comprehensive” article. The second argument, namely “consensus”, is used to subdue criticism by stating that the use of such sources has been decided upon by “consensus” and that critics should “drop the stick”, even though the criticism and the debate itself demonstrate that “consensus” has changed. Thereby primary sources like SS personal files hosted at state archives, self-published publications, publications by SS veteran organizations and scores of militaria literature have all been declared permissible reliable sources. Yes, article sourcing guidance should be developed by “content creators”, but sometimes some “content creators” become a gated community at odds with the guidelines of the community as a whole and in need of some input from the outside.
@MvbW If I understand correctly, Molobo has not been blocked, because they inserted references to ‘’Jane’s Fighting Ships’’ in an article on a German minesweeper sunk in 1939. And you have not been blocked at all, yet.--Assayer (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly copied from the first ARCA thread on this case, because it is just as relevant here as there. I have plenty of experience with disputed sourcing in ARBEE from my work on Yugoslavia in WWII articles and have never once thought this sort of ArbCom intervention was needed. I am fundamentally opposed to this remedy because it enters into content areas, and the arbitration process exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia conduct disputes, not content ones. If ArbCom wants to get involved in content matters, then it should ask the community for the scope of ArbCom to be expanded and receive that imprimatur before sticking its oar into content areas. We have a perfectly serviceable reliable sources policy, and questions about whether a particular source is reliable are determined by consensus, supplemented by outside opinions via RSN and dispute resolution mechanisms like RfC if a consensus cannot be arrived at between the regular editors of the article in question. As has been noted elsewhere, if the editor that wants to use a source cannot get a consensus that a source is reliable, it cannot be used. The Article sourcing expectations remedy should be voided as it was made outside the scope of ArbCom's remit. I think the comments about the chilling effect of this remedy reflect quite reasonable concerns, and these sanctions have a great deal of potential to be used as weapons in content disputes. If article sourcing guidance beyond WP:RS is needed for a particular contentious area, it should be developed by the content creators who actually know the subject area, not by ArbCom. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like Peacemaker's comment above, the comment I made at WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Antisemitism in Poland also applies here. In short, while I think that a remedy requiring quality sourcing is justified, the current remedy is too narrow as it rules out high quality but non-scholarly works. I'd suggest changing it to something like "Only high quality sources may be used. Preference should be given to peer-reviewed scholarly journals and books. Other reliable sources may be used to augment scholarly works or where such works are not available." I have no opinion on the mechanism for enforcing this, noting especially that this topic area has subject to very long-running and serious problems so strict penalties are likely justified, but the usual arrangement where editors who are not aware of the sanction are warned first should obviously apply. Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out, since it doesn't seem to have been mentioned in the above discussion, that we already enforce sourcing thresholds requiring a higher level of quality than that of WP:RS alone - they're used in two of the largest areas of Wikipedia, those being BLP and medical content. Since those areas seem to be working fine, many of the claims about major problems arising from this sanction would therefore seem to be incorrect. While the exact threshold is different in this case (being roughly in between the two in terms of restrictiveness), any argument that would apply equally in those areas needs to establish why this particular topic should be considered to be uniquely different.
The sanction seems to have been successful at preventing the use of poor sources to cause disruption (an issue of behavior, not content), and that should be recognized. Of course, it is entirely possible this particular threshold could be refined, but requests to do so should be based in reasoned argument as to why specific categories of sources have an equivalent level of reliability to the sources that are already permitted, as opposed to the (IMO quite hyperbolic) rhetoric used in some of the comments above. Sunrise (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Initiated by Volunteer Marek at 20:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per the recent comments on my talk page by User:TonyBallioni [141], User:Piotrus [142] and User:Worm That Turned [143], I am submitting this request to amend the Proposed Remedy 3.3.2 [144] of this case to read:
Icewhiz (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on Volunteer Marek anywhere on Wikipedia.
This effectively converts the two sided IBAN into a one sided one.
AsUser:Worm That Turned points out, with Icewhiz indefinitely banned from Wikipedia the grounds for a two way IBAN are no longer valid and its original rationale is no longer applicable. Related to Tony Ballioni's point, there occasionally arise discussion/interactions on Wikipedia where I (Volunteer Marek) am brought up or discussed in some connection to Icewhiz by other editors (some of them apparently brand new accounts) and where, because of the IBAN, I am unable to comment, reply or defend myself (this happened for example on User:Jimbo Wales's talk page). This is particularly egregious since Icewhiz was indefinitely banned for extremely nasty off-wiki harassment of myself (as well as other editors).
Likewise, since the end of the case, and Icewhiz's indef ban, the topic area has seen a proliferation of new accounts and sock puppets (although not all of them are Icewhiz). Some of these appear to be engaged in baiting behavior, for example by restoring Icewhiz's old edits, which raises the possibility of an inadvertent IBAN violation. In other cases, these sock puppets/new accounts have made edits which target me personally but because of the IBAN I am unable to bring up the possibility that they are connected to Icewhiz on Wiki (some of the diffs from these accounts have been oversighted due to their extremely nasty nature).
I want to state that if this amendment carries, I have no intention of "seeking out" Icewhiz, or gravedancing, or "interacting" with his old edits or initiating discussions about him. For the most part I will be all too happy to continue to ignore his existence. However, as stated above, there is no longer a need for this restriction and occasionally (like with SPIs) a situation may arise where I should be able to comment.
I'm not comfortable with this being so broad. VM ought to be able to comment in some cases, but simply allowing them to comment anywhere for any reason doesn't sound reasonable. Volunteer Marek says there occasionally arise discussion/interactions on Wikipedia where I (Volunteer Marek) am brought up or discussed in some connection to Icewhiz by other editors (some of them apparently brand new accounts) and where, because of the IBAN, I am unable to comment, reply or defend myself; why can't we amend to say that on such occasions, VM may comment. --valereee (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2019 (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 amendment request or provide additional information.
Remedy 2 of Antisemitism in Poland ("Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek interaction-banned") is renamed Icewhiz banned from interacting with Volunteer Marek and amended to read:
| Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
|---|---|
| 0 | 5 |
| 1–2 | 4 |
| 3–4 | 3 |
Initiated by Sandstein at 19:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man#The Rambling Man prohibited provides: "If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for up to 48 hours. If, in the opinion of the enforcing administrator, a longer block, or other sanction, is warranted a request is to be filed at WP:ARCA." This is such a request.
In the abovementioned decision, twice amended since 2016, The Rambling Man was "prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their competence." He has been blocked four times by four different admins for violating this restriction (see his block log). A few days ago, Kingofaces43 requested enforcement of the restrictions for recent comments made by The Rambling Man such as:
In my view, as expressed at AE, the comments at issue are "reflections on the competence" of others, and therefore violate the restriction. Other admins in the AE thread have disagreed.
If the Committee shares my view, it should ban The Rambling Man. If an explicit ArbCom restriction and four blocks (among many other blocks) are not effective in changing the conduct of an editor, nothing will be. Editors should not have to put up with intractably rude people. We would not accept such people among our friends or at our workplaces. We should not have to accept them in this collaborative, academic project. The merits of their contributions cannot make up for the disruption and bad will (and enforcement overhead) they cause.
If the Committee is of the view that the comments at issue are not a violation of the restriction, or are not worth sanctioning, it should lift the restriction, because this would show that the restriction is too vague to be consistently and fairly enforced. Sandstein 19:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I literally give up. Sandstein has used every chance to see the back of me and I can't take it any longer. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This ARCA demonstrates the ridiculous nature of the wording of the sanction. I made substantiated claims at WP:AN about a number of edits by a certain admin who refused to do anything but bait me, and make false accusations about my motivations. If now, as it seems, I am to be banned because I objected and stated said objections to an admins inserting false information, incorrect sources, badly formatted citations, making false edit summaries and leaving articles in a worse state, half-removing contentious material but leaving the rest, in a meatbot fashion, then I guess that sums the place up now. Absolutely everything I said was factually accurate. There was no discussion over "motivation", just statements of fact about the ever-increasing mess this admin was leaving throughout the vast numbers of edits they were making. Of course, given the wording of the sanction, just about every sentence I've typed here now means I should be banned too. Bravo. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A general question: does this constitute a "reflection" on this user's "competence"? I corrected them a couple of times, gave reasons for doing so, but yet no-one sought to sanction me for it. Where is the line between correcting mistakes, telling people I'm correcting their mistakes, asking people to stop continually making mistakes I'm having to correct, and accepting personal attacks and aspersions about my motivations, while still asking them to desist from their introductions of errors into the encyclopedia? Is this really what this sanction is about? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth being explicit here that of the administrators to comment at ARCA AE:
This matches very closely with the situation detailed in The December 2018 amendment request (see summary in my section there).
The underlying disagreement on this occasion is a content dispute between two groups of editors who each feel, apparently in good faith, that their actions are improving the encyclopaedia and the actions of the other group are harming it. I have not looked into it enough to have a view on whether one or other group is right or whether it is more complicated that that. Both sides however have got very annoyed with each other and instead of working out their differences calmly and amicably, heated walls of text are being lobbed from behind barricades. While this conduct is very clearly not what anybody wants to see from editors, I do not believe that it is what the committee intended the sanction to cover as TRM has not speculated about motives, and has not reflected on other editors' general competence but has detailed specific concerns he has and why he has those concerns (albeit phrased very poorly).
I would like the Committee to:
Based on his comment above and this edit summary it is clear that TRM is feeling harassed by Sandstein (and given the history I can fully understand why). At the very least I think the committee should take note of this and actively consider an interaction ban or other restriction to help with this. Thryduulf (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: I am not protecting, or attempting to protect, TRM from valid enforcement requests. When I see evidence that TRM has violated both the letter and spirit of a restriction then I will either impose or endorse a proportionate sanction on him. What I will not do is impose or endorse a sanction where nearly everyone who is either (a) uninvolved or (b) you agrees TRMs action did not violate the letter and spirit of his restriction. This is not special treatment: this is exactly the same standard that I hold every editor to.
In the current dispute, as in previous ones, multiple administrators have explained to you, in detail, why there was not a violation yet on every occasion you attempt to impose not just any sanction but the harshest one available. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuniq: The issue with that is that any administrator imposing such a block would be doing so contrary to the consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE (when the discussion was closed there was either no consensus either way or a consensus against, depending how you read it). This sanction would then be appealed and we'd be back where we are now. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: so how should TRM indicate that he believes an editor has made a series of bad judgements over a sustained period of time without violating this restriction? How can he heed this restriction if not even arbitrators can agree what is and is not a violation of it? I agree that TRM's conduct in this dispute is not good (but the conduct of several other parties is equally bad), but I do not understand how, in context, it violates this restriction.
Whatever the answers to the above, it is clearly not serving its intended purpose (and is probably actually hindering the resolution of this content dispute) and should be rescinded and replaced with something that clearly states its intent so that everyone (most importantly including TRM himself) can understand what is and what is not appropriate. Ideally with a provision that allows an identical sanction to be placed on any other party in a dispute with TRM that engages in behaviour that is prohibited of TRM and/or baits TRM. Thryduulf (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've not read the original thread that led to the AE filing, but looking at the four diffs linked in the AE itself, I think that if we interpret the restrictions as written then the first and fourth diffs should violate the "... prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their competence" restriction. The first diff clearly questions the competence, while the fourth clearly questions the motivation.
Problem with that is, in my (completely subjective) opinion none of the four diffs look like actionable, let alone bannable, offenses. In fact I completely don't see any issue with the 2nd and 3rd diffs. I suspect this is at the heart of the difference in opinion between Sandstein and the other AE admins.
Banedon (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As Sandstein mentioned, I filed the most recent AE, mostly as an uninvolved editor, so I don't have any history with TRM, which seems to have been a confounding factor in some previous requests on TRM and comments I see here already.
For my background, I first came across TRM at this post at RSN noticing a content dispute was being exacerbated by TRM's behavior. I tried to give some guidance there,[147][148] but their tone and response to that didn't allay concerns about battleground behavior or ignoring WP:ONUS policy: Hey? Suddenly you're looking for a consensus to include a source rather than exclude a source? You have it completely arse-about-face. . .
[149] I saw them later when behavior problems bled over to AN where I was made aware TRM had specific restrictions towards commenting on editor motivation, competency, etc.
When I filed the AE, TRM saying David Gerard lacked competency as an admin and should be recalled when they said are you open to recall as an admin who has consistently made bad judgements, false claims in edit summaries, deliberately introduced false claims into articles etc?
[150] as well as other diffs at the AE looked to be a plain as day violation from an outside perspective and pervasive throughout discussion rather than a one-off unactionable instance. Addressing one's capability is the same thing as competency even if the word itself is avoided. Just becoming aware of TRM in the last few days and doing a blind read of the remedy/case (and the most recent amendment), I thought the prohibition was clear and that TRM was also supposed to disengage. On that latter one, they've been badgering editors instead[151] at the RSN and AN posts to the point it seems to be in WP:ASPERSIONS territory, so the remedy seemed redundantly clear at that point even without broadly construed in the remedy language.
I don't have a horse in this dispute aside from noticing behavior problems exacerbated by TRM at the noticeboards that nearly had me ignore the postings instead as an uninvolved editor. That disruption by TRM just needs to stop. I thought the prohibition was clear, but since it's being tested by TRM, I agree something stricter might be needed since lack of enforcement has apparently been a perennial problem brought up here before. Arbs probably know more history than I do only getting up to speed on this over the last few days, but this seems to be a case where a sort of "topic" ban improvement could cover any inkling of WP:HOUNDING and WP:FOC given the WP:ROPE issue. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my recollection, I have had very few if any direct interactions with The Rambling Man. This is because I try to avoid interacting with combative established editors unless absolutely necessary, and I have read an awful lot about TRM over the years. If my memory is correct, then I am uninvolved. I am a logical kind of guy, so here is what I see: TRM is "prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their competence." That seems clear. TRM recently wrote "are you open to recall as an admin who has consistently made bad judgements, false claims in edit summaries, deliberately introduced false claims into articles etc?" That also seems clear to me even though throwing "etc." at the end of it looks like mediocre writing to me. But mediocre writing is not actionable in this context. What is actionable is that TRM's comment looks to me like a clearcut violation of their editing restriction. TRM is reflecting on the competence and motivations of another editor. TRM's defense (defence) seems to be that their speculations and reflections are correct. This is not a valid defense. If, for the sake of discussion, I had an editing restriction regarding elephants, and I added some truly brilliant, well-referenced, neutral and completely correct content about elephants, I would still be in violation of my editing restriction. (This is hypothetical because, unlike TRM, I have conducted myself in such a way that no restrictions have ever been imposed on my editing.) What we have here is what looks to me to be a clearcut violation of an editing restriction. The only open question, in my view, is what type of sanction should be imposed for the violation. That is up to those at a higher pay grade, who should make that decision now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree more or less word-for-word with everything Thryduulf says above, and (unusually) disagree with Cullen. It's obvious that the intention behind TRM's restriction was to prevent him from escalating disputes unnecessarily, not to prevent him from ever challenging an edit he deems inappropriate or raising concerns about the conduct of another editor. It's also clear that the "Admin A says there's nothing actionable, Admin B says there's nothing actionable, Admin C says there's nothing actionable, Sandstein not only says this is actionable but demands the harshest sanction allowed" cycle is repeating far too often, to the extent that it's becoming actively disruptive. (I presume none of the current committee needs it explained that Sandstein's "ignore the opinions of anyone who disagrees with me, and always throw the book" approach damages Wikipedia's credibility; it not only leads to bad feeling among those who receive unduly harsh treatment, but it increases the number of successful appeals and thus perpetuates the "arbitrary process" and "unblockable editors" memes.) It also seems to be becoming obvious that Sandstein has a particular fixation on TRM, as no matter what the concern raised about TRM—even if it's on a matter with which Sandstein has never shown any previous interest—Sandstein seems inevitably to be among the first people to pop up, and invariably demanding the harshest possible sanctions.
I'm not sure if this is something that would (or should) be appropriate for resolution by motion at ARCA or whether it would need a full case so evidence can be presented and examined in a more formal setting over a longer timescale, but I think we're now reaching the point where Sandstein's interactions with TRM, and Sandstein's activity at AE in general, ought to be formally examined. I've been hearing variations on "Sandstein disregards other AE admins and imposes supervote closures", "Sandstein makes AE decisions based on his personal like or dislike of the parties rather than on the evidence presented" and "Sandstein cherry-picks evidence to suit his preferred result" quite literally for years now. Some of that may just be because Sandstein's obsession with AE means he's by far the most active editor there so he receives blame for decisions that would have been made regardless of who made them, but the nature of the complaints against him seem remarkably specific and consistent over time, with the current spat with TRM just the latest manifestation. An admin consistently accused over a long period of time by multiple editors of the misuse of advanced permissions to pursue personal grudges—regardless of the accuracy of the allegations—is ultimately going to become a trust and safety issue (both with lowercase and uppercase T &S), and we only just finished sacrificing millions of innocent pixels to establish the principle that these situations are for Arbcom to clean up.
To avoid the timesink of what would likely be a lengthy and acrimonious case, I also think it would be healthy both for Sandstein and for Wikipedia were he to disengage from closing AE discussions or taking enforcement actions, either voluntarily or at the barrel of an Arbcom motion. That way he could still say his piece on any given issue about why he feels "the maximum sentence" or "no action at all" are the only acceptable courses; if his decisions aren't perverse and against consensus then whoever else closes the discussion and takes the enforcement action will reach the same conclusion so nothing will be lost or disrupted in any way. ‑ Iridescent 09:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(What were the previous cases involving The Rambling Man
in which I cast unfounded aspersions on [your] supposed motives
, incidentally? This is Wikipedia and we run on sources; if you're going to make claims you're expected to provide diffs rather than just making shit up and hoping some of it sticks. To help jog your memory, here's the diffs for every single comment I've ever made at AE regarding TRM.)
You may well be attempting to implement Arbcom's decisions, but the issue is that you've in my opinion demonstrated systematic incompetence both in interpreting the intent of those decisions, and in researching and interpreting the background to disputes, and instead just take on face value the claims of anyone who happens to be bringing someone to AE whom you happen to have taken a dislike to.
That complaints of this nature have been made about you for years isn't in dispute, and is why if you're not willing to commit to following Wikipedia's customs, practices and policies, rather than constantly insisting that your personal opinions of the participants in a dispute overrule consensus, you're sooner or later going to end as the subject either of an Arbcom case or of one of Jan Eissfeldt's dossiers. It doesn't matter if the allegations are true or not, the fact that they keep being made means that someone will ultimately have a duty of care to investigate them. (If Framageddon has changed one thing on Wikipedia, it's that the good ol' boy days are over and we're no longer willing to dismiss repeated complaints about an editor or admin because "he's been around a long time so the complaints probably aren't worth investigating".) Your refusal to listen to other admins who aren't in total agreement with you on whatever the topic in question happens to be will mean that Arbcom or T&S—the only two bodies with the authority to compel you to participate—are the only people who will be able to conduct that investigation, and whichever of the two it turns out to be the process will be unpleasant and time-consuming for all involved. ‑ Iridescent 11:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the Committee shares my view, it should ban The Rambling Man); it's entirely relevant whether this is a legitimate request or an attempt to weaponize the committee as a tool to intimidate a wiki-political opponent. Obviously if Sandstein isn't willing to moderate his behavior both at AE and more generally (I'm still waiting for either the evidence for his claims about me above or a retraction…) then this is going to end up as a full case eventually as it's not viable in the long term to have an admin abusing process to try to intimidate those who don't share his opinions—it does nobody any good to disregard the fact that Sandstein's actions aren't isolated incidents but are taking place within a broader context. ‑ Iridescent 15:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why all the drama? It appears the 48-hour block rule was imposed in December 2018 and there has only been one block (for 48 hours) since then. Any admin who believes a sanction is warranted should impose a 48-hour block and stop talking about it. Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein:ByI cannot interpret these interventions by Thryduulf and Iridescent...
, are you speculating on their motives? If you are, then you will understand how innocently one may speculate; if you're not, you will understand how (such) commentary can be misunderstood. ——SN54129 11:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's "casting aspersions" on Sandstein to suggest that he has previously been vociferous in seeking sanctions on TRM at AE when there is actual empirical data on the situation. Here, for example, he calls for a block of a month, but the case is eventually closed as "No Violation". Here, exactly the same thing happens again. Previously, Sandstein had actually blocked TRM for a month, which was then reduced to a week on appeal. Even 18 months ago, Sandstein's neutrality was being questioned - from the second link above "Generally I would expect an admin to recognize when their judgement may be compromised regardless of whether they meet the letter of WP:INVOLVED. Failing that I would expect that they would step aside once several editors repeatedly bring the matter up; If for no other reason than to avoid the appearance of impropriety."' Black Kite (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If Arbcom do not address Sandstein's behaviour towards TRM here, then the next step will be opening an AN discussion with intent to ban him from any interactions with TRM. At which point all of Sandsteins contributions at AE, his habit of ignoring and/or dismissing other admins concerns, the over-eagerness to (not just with TRM) impose the maximum possible penalty, the various instances where he frankly has a basic lack of competence/understanding in certain subjects makes him unsuitable for enforcing restrictions on that subject - I can line up a long list of editors if you want and pages of evidence. The likely outcome of said discussion (for reasons iridescent and others above go into) would either be A)Sandstein gets prevented from interacting with TRM in any editorial or administrative function, or b)it gets punted back to Arbcom as too complicated and too many problems. So feel free to save everyone a lot of time and effort here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so a contributor with 230,000 edits has received 4 AE civility blocks in 3 years, and the latest violation is borderline enough that admins disagree whether it should be enforced. So the solution is to either siteban the editor or remove the sanction entirely? And what is the metric for measuring success here? Is TRM being blocked too often, or not often enough?
Since this is at ARCA, I think there are a few ways in which this custom sanction *cough* could be improved. For one thing, I think it could provide alternate pathways towards resolution besides time-consuming trips to arbitration enforcement and blocks. Obviously it would be ideal if the uncivil personal comments stopped altogether, but the next best thing is if the comments are stricken/withdrawn voluntarily like this (diff of TRM striking one of their comments) Second, I think the scope could be narrowed to omit administrative noticeboards and TRM's user talk page. Unlike normal talk pages, noticeboards are designed to handle complaints about user behavior, and sometimes discussing things like competence and motivation is appropriate and necessary. And the user's own talk page is a low-disruption venue where users can traditionally blow off steam without too much fear of reprisal. ~Awilley (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Taking into account that this is not an actual Arbitration request but one seeking clarification —and I would hope the distinction between the two would not become overly blurred— I think both parties here could benefit from advise that encompasses both criticism and praise. TRM for being (still) overly combative in their conduct, but notwithstanding their otherwise potent contributions. Sandstien for being overly strict —and, at times, supervotey— on AE, but who otherwise often does good work on that board.
There is also the matter of the restriction itself, which as mentioned in AE, I find confusing. That, indeed, should be clarified by motion. Uninvolved admins should be able to make immediate sense of it. Also, I would be opposed to any sanctions being applied at this juncture, even though I did find TRM's conduct in this latest dispute to have been subpar.
Finally, I'm a big believer in not needing to formalize everything. But I also don't know enough about the TRM arbitration case or about the TRM-Sandstien dynamic to offer more definitive input. Still, an awareness of (truly taking to heart) and a willingness by both parties to act upon their perceived strengths (more of) and weaknesses (less of) would be a good thing. It might be enough to turn the tide. Or we may be past that point. I don't really know which it is. But would lean toward giving the former informal approach a chance, if at all possible. El_C 17:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else, I think this illustrates the need for clarification. (I do not think the only two possible resolutions are "site ban" or "lift the restriction"; far from it.) In my view, while I think the phrasing in which TRM expressed his views was in some cases excessive, I did not see him to be questioning the overall competence of any editors or admins, but rather disagreeing with particular actions. In one sense, I suppose disagreeing with someone's edit or action could be considered a question on their competence, but, as I said at the request, if the requirement is that TRM isn't allowed to disagree with people or object to their edits, it should (and presumably would) say that.
So far as Sandstein, well, Sandstein is often willing to make a decision in the tough cases (which AE sees plenty of), and when you do that, someone is going to be unhappy no matter what call you make. However, I would encourage Sandstein to consider some of the concerns brought up here by other admins with regard to TRM in specific, and handling in general. I absolutely do not want Sandstein pushed out of AE; we need people who are willing to make the tough call and take the inevitable flak for it. (I don't know enough about any particular history between Sandstein and TRM to comment on that). I'm around AE a fair bit myself, and in general, when I see Sandstein handle something, it is a reasonable and defensible decision. Sandstein does lean toward the tough side, but well, matters under discretionary sanctions are cases where decisive action is necessary to curb areas already subject to substantial disruption, so that in itself does not indicate a problem.
I wish I knew the best way forward. I'm afraid I don't. But the current framework isn't working. The filer of the AE request made their filing in good faith; their belief that it was a violation is a defensible one, as is the assertion that it was not. It does no favors to either TRM or to the community for us to be uncertain of what is permitted and what is not, and it is certainly not a good situation when the answer to "Was that a violation?" primarily depends on who answers that question. At this point, even the two arbitrators who have commented as of this writing don't agree on whether it was sanctionable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the admin TRM's comments were focused on (though the actions were purely editorial actions, not admin actions). FWIW, speaking as the target, I'm not too worried about them - non-admins' freedom to complain about admins, even in non-admin matters, is important, and I have a reasonably thick skin. I think he's dead-wrong and he thinks I'm dead-wrong - and the actual issue at hand will hopefully be resolved in an orderly manner with a resolution that all parties can live with in the current discussion at VPR.
But the effects of this behaviour on the editing environment need to be considered. I think it's important to note here that TRM's frankly amazing combativeness and junkyard-dog attitude is frankly wearying, and makes for a deeply unpleasant and repelling environment for other editors. This sanction isn't the precise appropriate one, but his behaviour is a serious problem - looking, for example, at the way he went off at Kingofaces43 as literally his first interaction, per above - and could do with some sort of action, because editors who insist on treating every interaction as a knock-down drag-out battle followed by wikistalking, as TRM does, are fundamentally bad for Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is not presented with the intention of being some sort of a slam-dunk case for immediate action against TRM - but just as an answer to Sluzzelin's request for edits demonstrating "editors who insist on treating every interaction as a knock-down drag-out battle followed by wikistalking".
Just picking a few examples from the last six months (and keeping in mind that this is not the issue this ARCA is about - but I've made a claim and should indeed back up what I said):
collapsed for length |
|---|
|
Interaction with TRM is unpleasant at best, and requires sifting through what he's saying for the substance amongst the gratuitous aggression - and a substantive response is often answered with an aggressive diversion.
I don't doubt his sincerity, or his considerable good work at Wikipedia - I do doubt his outbursts and intimidatory behaviour are appropriate, and he really needs to recognise and stop doing this sort of thing, at all.
I hope this answers Sluzzelin's question sufficiently - keeping in mind that this is not concerning what this ARCA is about, but about other behaviour. I do think this is at least some demonstration of an interaction style that is seriously problematic and intimidatory to third party editors, and that this needs attention. It would be good if TRM could just stop interacting with others in this manner, even when he's sure he's right - David Gerard (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
David Gerard, please provide diffs showing that TRM belongs to "editors who insist on treating every interaction as a knock-down drag-out battle followed by wikistalking" ("as TRM does"). Thank you. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As much as actual neutrality is important, so too is the perception that the enforcement process is fair and consistent in the severity of sanctions issued. I'd urge Sandstein to consider AGK's suggestion of voluntarily recusing from TRM-related matters. We're obviously in a very unique use case, so I don't think there's a strong risk of this being used to pressure other admins out of AE going forward. The tendency to always pull the trigger for an exorbitantly harsh sanction will naturally make an editor feel singled out. I hardly think the other admins who monitor the AE board will be unequipped to handle a future potential incident should the need arise.
At this point, any block issued would be punitive as we're now far removed from the diffs that started this all. For the Committee, I'd request rethinking the sanction itself. I know it's been through the ringer several times already, but my sense is that's evidence it's been unworkable from the get-go and that no perfect wording will make these issues easier for TRM or the admins at AE. I don't have a strong position on what that replacement should be, but clearly what we have is, at bottom, difficult and highly subjective to parse. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2019 (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 amendment request or provide additional information.
an admin who has consistently made bad judgementsin particular is not a reflection on competence. There are no exceptions in TRM's current sanction for reflections on competence that are specific, or substantiated, or in response to "baiting" (an embarrassing concept to apply to the conduct of adults in a collegial environment). He is banned from making them, full stop. It was worth a try, but I think at this point it's obvious that this sanction has not been effective in reducing disruption. If anything it's increased it, given the burden placed on AE admins who could otherwise be working on improving the encyclopaedia. So yes, let's either remove the sanction if we think TRM's conduct is acceptable, or replace it with a clearer and more easily enforceable one if it's not. – Joe (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their competence. I did get the impression that perhaps some participants in the AE discussion had missed that change (another reason why these highly 'bespoke' sanctions can be difficult to enforce). – Joe (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the other messes you've left all over the place) was remotely a sanction breach. Prior to Sandstein, the enforcement request was running an appropriate course and I would not have us amending the remedy. Instead, I would have Sandstein committing to recusal from enforcement of the TRM sanction. Having this commitment expire after 2 years would seem like selecting an appropriate amount of time.
the harassment ends tonightout of distress and not rage. Yet still the sentence is sinister and you have previously said things like that to other people on Wikipedia. When you are confronted by an interpersonal issue on Wikipedia, you need to start thinking upfront about the result you want to get to – rather than seeing red. Users in your position can erode and then lose community support if this sort of conduct goes on long enough, even if you are not actually "getting worse". Second, @Sandstein: if you will not commit to recusal, I may bring a motion compelling you. Although this appears like no choice at all, the motion cannot carry without a majority of the committee. Lastly, @Sandstein: I reiterate that I think your contributions to AE are valuable as a whole. You have received criticism about style and severity, from within this committee and by observers, that you need to take on board. However, peer review is a process that improves us and I encourage you not to resist its effects. AGK ■ 13:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
you clearly are so far off the mark it's remarkable,
not to mention the other messes you've left all over the place, and others he made in that conversation. Honestly, I'm not highly inclined to reword the sanction for a third time as you suggest—TRM has not been willing to adjust his behavior, and so we are just saddling AE with enforcement of a highly custom sanction (already difficult) against an editor who can make enforcement of sanctions against him quite unpleasant. That said, I'm not sure exactly what I think we should do—for one, the timing of this is really unfortunate: we have only six arbitrators who can give input on this, and TRM himself is a candidate in the current election. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
