| Revision as of 17:43, 17 June 2024 view sourceBarkeep49 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, New page reviewers, Oversighters, Administrators41,406 edits →Anachronist: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter: ? for Andy← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:17, 21 January 2025 view source Primefac (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators210,156 edits →IBAN Request: remove case, has been cross-posted to WP:AE in Special:Diff/1270861907 as the proper venueTag: Replaced | ||
| (999 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:ARC|a guide on talk page archiving|H:ARC}} | <noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:ARC|a guide on talk page archiving|H:ARC}} | ||
| {{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}} | {{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{-}} | ||
| {{shortcut|WP:ARC}} | |||
| </noinclude> | </noinclude> | ||
| <includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for arbitration}}}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{NOINDEX}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}} | ||
| <noinclude> |
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude> | ||
| == Anachronist == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' — ] ] '''at''' 07:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Proposed parties === | |||
| <!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{userlinks|Kaalakaa}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{admin|Anachronist}} | |||
| *{{admin|Cullen328}} | |||
| *{{admin|Jayron32}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|AndyTheGrump}} | |||
| ;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| <!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration --> | |||
| *Link 1 | |||
| *Link 2 | |||
| === Statement by Kaalakaa === | |||
| Anachronist, as an admin, seems to have some chronic issues with understanding our policies and guidelines. | |||
| * Previously, on 3 August 2023 , Anachronist, citing ], claimed that you don't need to cite sources for content based on your own observations in a museum . His arguments were refuted by Cullen328 and Jayron32 . Jayron32 particularly told Anachronist, "{{tq|Please stop confusing the new users here, and if you can't speak knowledgeably on this stuff, please stop.}}" | |||
| * On 3 September 2033, Anachronist reverted my edit with an edit summary "{{tq|This has nothing to do with censorship, but with WP:BURDEN}}" . So I opened a discussion and provided him with a quote from the source, but Anachronist said, "{{tq|I am not arguing that the statement was unsourced. I am saying that for a biography, we don't need to put undue emphasis on analysis of statements of faith.}}" This reply of his, in my opinion, has no relevancy with ], and displays his misunderstanding of the policy. | |||
| * In November 2023, on his talk page, Anachronist was involved in an argument with AndytheGrump about a book published by University Press . AndytheGrump appeared to be planning to take Anachronist to ArbCom to request that he be desysopped, stating: "{{tq|you seem so clearly intent on misinterpreting multiple policies in order to exclude a legitimate academic source from a contentious article on entirely spurious grounds.}}" At the end of the section, Anachronist said, "{{tq|I'm going to sleep now. A dispute over content should be continued on the article talk page. I'll look for it tomorrow.}}" However, Anachronist did not reply again on that article's talk page . | |||
| * On 26 February 2024, the arbitrators pointed out that Anachronist's understanding of ] was incorrect. . | |||
| * Recently, Anachronist used ] to support his arguments , but it turns out the essay was written only by himself. It contains many extraordinary claims about university presses, but many of them are not supported by reliable sources. The essay also seems to contradict our ] policy, which states that "{{tq|books published by university presses}}" are among "{{tq|the most reliable sources.}}" Within the essay, he also describes Russ Rodgers, a command historian of the US Army and former adjunct professor of history, as a hobbyist historian. | |||
| === Statement by Anachronist === | |||
| The bee in Kaalakaa's bonnet seems to arise from objections to his reliance on a source (Rodgers) in the ] article for which he is the sole proponent, as that source is the primary topic of interaction Kaalakaa has had with me. For reference: | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] (about 2/3 the way into the conversation) | |||
| {{U|Iskandar323}}, {{U|DeCausa}}, {{U|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}}, and {{U|Admiral90}} participated. Kaalakaa is the only editor promoting that source. The other points brought up appear to be ] grasping, and I won't waste my time addressing them, what happened happened, others are welcome to comment for better or worse. Otherwise, I'll add that the essay at ], which seems also to irritate Kaalakaa who falsely claims it cites no reliable sources, is based on citations to two such sources, as well as the community discussions above, for which he also ] the arguments given. | |||
| I freely admit that I was inconsistent in my understanding of AE decisions. We live and learn. ~] <small>(])</small> 01:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Cullen328 === | |||
| === Statement by Jayron32 === | |||
| === Statement by AndyTheGrump === | |||
| *Regarding my November 2023 dispute with Anachronist over content in the contentious ] article, it is well documented in the on Anachronist's talk page, so I'll only summarise. There are, in my opinion, at least two factors that need to be considered here. | |||
| :(1) Anachronist and myself seem to have entirely differing understanding regarding constraints put on editing under active arbitration rules. As far as I am concerned, what happened was quite simple. The article was made subject to AE, Anachronist removed sourced content then in place, and per AE I "challenged by reversion". Anachronist's position seems to be that rather than applying to content in the article at the time, 'reversion' can be backdated at will, to whatever version of an article that suits a contributor. | |||
| :(2) Anachronist's understanding of WP:RS policy in regard to the disputed content is without question utterly at odds with anything I've seen the community support in decades. He makes starts by arguing that {{tq|it's questionable that this assistant professor is even a notable scholar per WP:NPROF}} as if WP:N had anything to do with WP:RS, and than doubles down by describing the author as "]". Per my comment on Anachronist's talk page, the author, Jürgen Schaflechner is {{tq|an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Heidelburg. He has been doing fieldwork directly related to the topic of the article for something like a decade. He is the co-editor, and a chapter contributor, to a book published by the Oxford University Press, where he analyses in detail the subject of the 'coerced conversion' topic}}. In summary, Schaflechner is as credible a source on a topic as Misplaced Pages policy could possibly expect, and about as non-fringe as could be imagined. | |||
| Ultimately Anachronist seemed to half-heartedly back down over some of these highly questionable claims, though still insisting that I had "violated AE" (see ). And frankly, even if that were true (I'm sure those familiar with policy will agree it isn't, after looking at the timeline, and the arguments presented), Anachronist's absurd arguments regarding the validity of a published academic - an anthropologist writing on a subject he had been researching through fieldwork for many years - as a source can only lead me to the conclusion that Anachronist is unfitted to be an admin. I cannot in good faith believe that it is acceptable for anyone in that position to be so at odds with core Misplaced Pages policy and yet remain in a position of trust. | |||
| :Re Barkeep below: If ArbCom cannot accept evidence demonstrating that an admin lacks any understanding of the core policies they are being asked to ensure compliance with, what mechanism then exists for the community to deal with the issue? WP:ANI cannot, per policy, de-sysop. If ArbCom won't look into the matter, there appear to be no alternatives. I refuse to believe that this impasse has ever been sanctioned by the community that places admins in a position of trust. | |||
| === Statement by RoySmith === | |||
| From what I've read above, the issues with Anachronist don't have anything to do with their conduct as an admin. Even if we take every one of these complaints at face value, it all adds up to not understanding sourcing policy. Citing your own essay in an argument isn't a good look, but again, it's not an abuse of the admin tools. Looking at this another way, were they to be desysopped, that wouldn't affect their ability to do the things that they've been accused of doing. So I don't see why this is being framed as a request to desysop. | |||
| === Statement by Deepfriedokra === | |||
| As I see no links to WP:AN or any other dispute resolution process, I imagine this will be declined.] (]) 13:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by Serial=== | |||
| Regarding RoySmith's query, the committee would have to ask the filer for their understanding, but mine would be along the lines that if someone can hold such an... adjacent (mis)understanding of some of our most fundamental policies, then can they be trusted with advanced permissions? The way things are going, I don't know. ] 13:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| User:Kaalakaa needs, metaphorically speaking, to be hung out to dry on this one. They are trying to weaponize Arbcom to win a content dispute, simple as that. And to push a pretty FRINGEPOV in doing so. The reason there is no previously attempted dispute resolution—especially at ANI, where one might imagine such a scurrilous ignorance of 'policies and guidelines' to be welcomed for community denunciation—is that they would get told a) it's a content dispute with no use (let alone ''mis''use) of the tools, and b) that their own over-reliance on one particular source is also problematic. Either way, Kaalakaa obviously does not want to risk this, hence the smoke and mirrors regarding policy ignorance, etc. | |||
| There is a case to be heard. Not here. Can the committee's recommendation be that this be returned ''certiorari'' to WP:ANI, where justice will doubtless take its natural course. ] 15:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Lemonaka === | |||
| Is this Arbcom request filed correctly? The links for previous discussion or ] went missing. Might be these following discussions between them? | |||
| ] or this one ? Have there been any discussion on ] before coming to here since ARBCOM is really the last step?--] 14:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Hammersoft === | |||
| It may be a good idea to place ] for ]. Its only (very few) uses are by Anachronist, and it appears to contradict standing norms. As to the rest of this, perhaps a ] is warranted. But, sanctions? Having a few mistaken impressions and exiting a conversation doesn't seem to rise to the bar of sanctioning someone. Admins don't enjoy special protections above any editor here, but if this case is accepted it's guaranteed to result in Anachronist being de-adminned. The levels of off base behavior simply don't rise to that level. Anachronist has used admin privileges more than 14,000 times, or about a thousand a year since ]. If Anachronist is ''really'' that far off the rails, let's see some evidence of inappropriate or flat wrong use of admin privileges. --] (]) 15:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Aoidh: The history over time proves otherwise. --] (]) 01:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Aoidh: As I noted above, admins don't enjoy additional protections. My point is that if the case is accepted, Anachronist will be de-adminned, and that must be taken into account. Yes take cases on their own merits, but don't blindly walk into the turbine blades in the name of justice. Does this case really rise to that level or are there alternatives? 14,000 admin actions getting it right across 14 years and now we are here? There's more going on here, and admins aren't supposed to be perfect. --] (]) 12:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| For the record; every time ArbCom has accepted a party named case about an administrator over the last six years the administrator has been de-adminned. I stopped counting after 10. I guess somehow when ArbCom's batting 1.000 it's reasonable to assume Anachronist wouldn't be de-adminned if this case is accepted. --] (]) 14:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statemennt By Just Step Sideways=== | |||
| Just FYI I moved the essay back to their userspace just now, noting in the move log "''per our longstanding policy of keeping extreme minority opinion essays in the userspace of the person who wrote them''" ] ] 20:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Ad Orientem === | |||
| The issues being raised are legitimate and warrant discussion. However, and as noted by others above, there is no evidence that this matter has been previously addressed in any other forum. Absent a credible claim that Anachronist has abused the tools, this appears to be premature and I suggest the committee '''decline''' the requested case. -] (]) 20:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by DeCausa === | |||
| "Anachronist, as an admin, seems to have some chronic issues..." Meh. Some potentially troutable interpretations of policy at most that would raise a minor ripple if this had been brought to ANI first. My experience of these two editors have been at the ] article. I've seen and interacted with Anachronist there for the last decade and a half (both under current and former name). He's been a balanced, reasonable and calming influence on what can be a choppy talk page. Certainly a net positive there. Kaalakaa appeared there about 12 months ago and their voluminous edits resulted in a complete re-write of this prominent article over 2-3 months - but it's been with a discernible POV, and a dubious selection of sources. This happened less than two months after the account was created. Kaalakaa showed a high familiarity with the nuts and bolts of editing and policy for such a new account. See ] for more on their sourcing choices. As was pointed out in that thread there is discomfort with what Kaalaaka has pushed through, including from Anachronist. {{u|Hemiauchenia}} summarises it accurately . This Arbcom request is about attacking opposition in a content dispute and the Committee should dismiss. ] (]) 21:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Red-tailed hawk === | |||
| I don't quite see why Arbitration needs to be sought here if there haven't been prior attempts at dispute resolution. There isn't some egregious abuse of administrative tools here, and this fundamentally looks to be a sourcing dispute in a particular article. | |||
| Rather than entertaining arbitration here, I would encourage the ArbCom to decline this and the parties to pursue normal content dispute resolution. This can take the form of discussions on ] regarding the reliability of particular sources, as well as formal RfCs on the article talk page if there is some article-specific content issue. But I just don't see how we need to invoke the ''last resort'' of arbitration at this point. — ] <sub>]</sub> 04:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Joe Roe === | |||
| If being wrong about something is now grounds for a desysop, this is going to be a big case. Our policies aren't written on stone tablets; if Anachronist believes that museum collections constitute verifiable sources, he's perfectly entitled to make that case. Maybe ], maybe not. In the mean time, as long as he's not using his tools outside of the bounds of established consensus, there's no case for mis''conduct'' and misthinking generally doesn't need ArbCom intervention. All four 'incidents' presented here boil down to the same thing: Anachronist thinks something wrong; Anachronist used the WRONGLETTERS in an edit summary; Anachronist got the AE process wrong; Anachronist went so far as to write down the wrong things that he thinks in a wrong essay and made up some WRONGLETTERS to use in his wrong argument. If you don't worry about whether Anachronist is right or wrong, the dispute evaporates. | |||
| Also, what is actually wrong with ]? {{tq|Some university press books may not be reliable due to promotion of fringe topics or obscure viewpoints}} is an obvious statement of fact. You can say the same thing about peer-reviewed journals or newspapers or anything else we consider ''generally'' to be indicator of reliability – they're run by humans, so sometimes they screw up. The rest of the essay just gives some examples and plausible explanations for why a book might be unreliable despite being published by a university press. I don't see why it can't be in projectspace. {{ping|Just Step Sideways}} What's the "extreme minority view"? – ] <small>(])</small> 15:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by {Non-party} === | |||
| <!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * --> | |||
| === Anachronist: Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| *{{re|Kaalakaa}} you have about 125 words for any responses. {{u|AndyTheGrump}} you have 85 words. If either of you need an extension please ask for it prior to posting. Thanks, ] (]) 14:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Anachronist: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0> === | |||
| {{anchor|1=Anachronist: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small> | |||
| *My standard for accepting cases are three questions: {{tqq|Is there some reason ArbCom needs to handle this case? Are the allegations, if proven true, enough to merit a sanction? Is there enough evidence to suggest the allegations have a reasonable chance to be proven true?}} The latter two questions appear to have the answer as yes, considering I apply a lower standard for admins. So far the first question, even though this is an admin, seems to be a no. I will wait to see if more evidence emerges to answer that question before deciding whether to vote to accept or decline this case. ] (]) 14:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:While I am not yet convinced this is issue is ready for ArbCom intervention, I don't consider AN/ANI to be a mandatory step prior to the committee hearing an admin case. For me the ARCA is such a step. And the community nature of the teahouse discussion serves some of the same purpose that an AN/ANI discussion would have, despite the fact that the teahouse is obviously and clearly not a dispute resolution forum. If the filer had therefore filled out the paperwork of this case differently including one or both of those in the DR section it wouldn't effect, for me, my current stance. ] (]) 14:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{re|AndyTheGrump}}: are you looking for an outcome here other than desysop? Because even if Anachronist is wrong on certain areas of policy, if they're not wrong in the places they're using the tools it would seem to call for a different response than if there is tool misuse. ] (]) 17:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *{{Reply to|Hammersoft}} I don't think a desysop is or should be the only possible result and certainly isn't a guaranteed result. {{Reply to|Kaalakaa}} cases do generally require prior dispute resolution and the diffs provided so far do not show behavior that is severe enough that it requires an ArbCom case bypassing the community processes (per ] and ]). If this is a situation where Anachronist has {{tq|lost the trust or confidence of the community}} (per ]) then the community needs to have a reasonable chance to decide if that's the case. - ] (]) 00:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :*{{Reply to|Hammersoft}} Highly likely but ], and the percentage of past desysops should not be a consideration in whether a case is accepted. Each case should be weighed on its own merits. - ] (]) 02:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * "{{xt|If the case is accepted, Anachronist will be de-adminned}}" seems incorrect to me. I tend to be the most gung-ho arb for taking mops and I can see myself rejecting a desysoping proposal. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:17, 21 January 2025
"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC. Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open cases| Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requests| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: American politics 2 | none | (orig. case) | 15 January 2025 |
| Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal | none | none | 23 January 2025 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Requests for arbitration
| Shortcuts
About this page Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.