Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Crosswiki issues	Motions	31 October 2017	2/1/0
Nathan B. Forrest		6 November 2017	0/6/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	8 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Crosswiki issues

Initiated by Fram (talk) at 14:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Ymblanter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Section at AN (link is to closing of section to show final situation]
• User talk:Ymblanter#Please retract some statements

Statement by Fram

Yesterday, I noticed a Wikidata Bot when discussing a statement about Wikidata here (where I also discussed two other Wikidata bots]. I then researched this bot a bit further, and posted my conclusions here: a new user created a spambot, using his own site as a reference, to get it into Wikidata (and into enwiki). I noted this as an example of the problems we face with Wikidata, where other policies and culture apply than here; we struggle with spam as well, but the BAG would never approve such a bot without questions asked, with only three test edits, without an editor history, without checking the reference used...

The editor who gave the bot its botflag is User:Ymblanter, an admin on enwiki and an admin and bureaucrat (one of three) on Wikidata. They reacted vehemently to my indication of his role in this, first at Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs#An example of how Wikidata works and less than 15 minutes later, before I even had responded to his first posts in that discussion at WP:AN[2], in a section which had nothing to do with Ymblanter or the edits under discussion.

They claimed there that my post about the bot and his role in it "goes in the direction of stalking" and that I "should be topic-banned on mentioning Wikidata.". Another editor replied[3] that "that one individually seems reasonable and raises a serious concern about Wikidata" and "it doesn't seem unreasonable to have raised it on this project."

From there on, things escalated, with Ymblanter in their next edit claiming that I made a "fucking lie" to "the audience which is not familiar with the subject?" (it was on a page dedicated to scrutinizing the use of Wikidata on enwiki, not some unrelated page filled with newbies). I asked them here (and multiple times afterwards) to retract the claims he made or to provide evidence for them, all to no avail (he presented one quote I made as if one quote about one event can be turned into stalking somehow). Further replies by Ymblanter at AN stated "you apparently unable to write about Wikidata without breaking English Wikipedia policies". His parting shot at AN was [4] "this one, to be honest, reminds me "Pls remind me why I should care about your opinion", after which one user was indefblocked". This has a rather chilling effect, an admin commparing comments I made with comments he was reminded off which ended in an indefblock.

Seeing that nothing good would come of further discussion at that time, when Ymblanter was clearly upset, I waited until the next day to discuss his statements further. User talk:Ymblanter#Please retract some statements, which was mainly fruitless. They eventually admitted that "After reading Stalking, may be indeed you actions are not yet to that level." May be, not yet? No retraction of the claims that I told "fucking lies" to an audience unfamiliar with the sitation, that I needed to be topic banned, and that my comments reminded him of another situation where another editor endd up indef blocked. Instead, they simply removed the whole section at AN[5] with the edit summary "Fram insists they have right to throw mud at me, but I must "retract" my response; fine, let him continue to throw the mud, this exchange is not so much important to be in archives", which is just adding more personal attacks while removing the previous ones. Meanwhile, at Wikidata, they start blackening my name at the Project chat, section "Bots": "This was discovered at the English Wikipedia by an opponent of Wikidata, and quickly escalated in a serious of personal attacks against me", but where they otherwise continue to defend the bot they approved as making good edits.

All this results in an enwiki admin I can't trust to be level-headed, able to defuse situations, or able to handle criticism, who seems to lack the basic knowledge of some core policies (what are personal attacks? what is stalking?) or how and where to present a case if you do want a sanction against someone. An admin who sees fit to make chilling statements about indef blocking and who sees no problem in editors spamming their commercial website to Wikidata and enwiki, and even facilitating it. Whether this just needs an admonishment or a full desysop is up to ArbCom to decide, and their position at Wikidata is out of scope anyway (and it is unlikely that they would have a problem with their actions over there anyway). Fram (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, you can now add "contacting an editor utterly unrelated to the current situation but with a known history with me" to the list of admin-unworthy actions (in their statement below). Fram (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Apparently a new editor adding links to their own commercial site (still in beta, with no history of trustworthiness, ...) is not spamming then? This is just standard acceptable behaviour which presumably would be approved at enwiki as well? Never heard of WP:REFSPAM? That the end result of their edits was that we get the exact same data at e.g. 2017 J1 League but that in their version the link to the official website is replaced with a link to their site, is not spamming? That the spam links afterwards changed to even worse spam links (directly to their cryptocurrency-selling page) doesn't mean that the original bot wasn't a spambot and the editor a spammer (who is using his "partnership" with Wikidata as a selling proposition on his website!). Fram (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@InvanVector: see my reply to Ymblanter. "Valid info" from a commercial site in beta, without any history of factchecking, accuracy, ..., is spamming a website. Allowing a brand-new editor to do this based on three example edits and without further limitations, questions, ... is bad, still defending this after it has been pointed out is the worrying aspect though. Fram (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: while every aspect deserves scrutiny, I don't see how this one aspect decides whether we have a case or not. The defense of spambots is one aspect only, the accusations of stalking and so on are at least equally important (and e.g. the canvassing in this very arbcom case by pinging LauraHale). An admin with such a tenuous grasp of so many basic and varied policies, an admin who wants actions against another editor based on absolutely nothing, goes beyond "was the bot spamming from the start, or was he spamming terribly from the start"? If you allow editors with zero history at any wiki to start a bot to link to their own website, should you then really be surprised if it turns out to be a problem from the start and a much bigger problem later on? Pretending, as Ymblanter and other bureaucrats and admins at Wikidata still do, that this issue could have happened here as well, shows a complete misunderstanding of the bot approval process here. Perhaps we should contact some BAG members to give their view on this. Fram (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih; I agree with your last point of your post at 16:55, 31 October 2017, and should not have made that sarcastic remark. Fram (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I have struck out my incorrect statement above, it were two other admins who said that it could have happend on the wikiprojects as well, not you. (See here for where this happened) Fram (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

About the case name: I specifically did not choose "Ymblanter" because there has been a push against cases named after editors, which would supposedly prejudge the outcome. Perhaps the current name isn't good enough, feel free to suggest something better. Fram (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I can not "continue" doing things I haven't done yet. Furthermore, what part of this is wrong? if your statement here[6] was not intended to defend the Wikidata infobox version, then what exactly was your intention with that statement? When it has been made very clear that the things that get reverted are not improvements at all, to then state out of the blue "Reverting improvements is vandalism." is either adding a completely unconstructive, unconnected policy summary which doesn't help the discussion one bit but just adds noise, or a defense of these "improvements" and the infobox under discussion. Apparently I was wrong to assume that your comment would actually have some point to it, and instead you claim that I should AGF that it was just an utterly pointless thought that popped into your mind and you felt the need to share with the world there and then, even if it had no bearing on the actual discussion. I'll let the character assassination in the remainder of your reply for what's it worth, as it seems no one who commented here but you so far has read this ArbCom request as "a blanket, aggressive assumption of bad faith" instead of what it is, a fact-based assumption of either general incompetence or of temporary incompetence when your own actions and/or Wikidata are concerned. Fram (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Peel. All very nice, but can you perhaps provide some evidence for your claims? Otherwise it is just some unfounded opinion by someone who just happens to be aligned with Ymblanter and against me on most things regarding Wikidata on enwiki, and should probably be disregarded by the ArbCom as a case of sour grapes from someone who just lost an RfC I initiated (but still wants to keep his template which has just been rejected). Fram (talk) 08:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Peel. You mean Wikipedia_talk:Wikidata/2017_State_of_affairs#Relevant_discussion_at_Portuguese_wikipedia? You really believe anything in there is ArbCom-material? I invite all ArbCom members to read that discussion and point anything truly problematic they can find in it. Or else to urge Mike Peel to come up with something somewhat more convincing. Fram (talk) 09:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@ChristianKI: "It seems to me like the argument of Flam is because Wikidata allowed a bot who created items about Japanese sport scores that don't get imported anywhere into Wikipedia and the bot takes the data from a startup (and thus messed up their urls for a week) this shows that editoral judgements at Wikidata are so bad that Wikipedia shouldn't use Wikidata and the person who's responsible for allowing that bot to operate should be desysopped. " First, they did get imported into enwiki (by the same editor), so you start of on the wrong foot already. Second, taking stats from a startup is stupid: taking stats from a startup through a bot operated by the startup, who has shown no interest in helping Wikipedia until they wanted to make money by providing a cryptocurrency, is just helping a commercial startup gets its spamlinks on Wikidata and on as many Wikipedias as possible (as that is the huge benefit of Wikidata, remember, adding info once and getting it in 200 wikis simultaneously). This (and the defensive reactions at Wikidata about this, not seeing any problems with what happened), and many other issues, indeed make me believe that enwiki shouldn't use Wikidata. But that is, as far as I am concerned, not the scope of this ArbCom case (although obviously, if ArbCom would decide to have a case about the use of Wikidata, I would participate). This case is about the actions and comments Ymblanter made on enwiki in response to my criticism of that bot. He has shown on enwiki a profound misunderstanding of basic things an admin should know, and no indication that he is really learning from his misunderstandings. While his actions at Wikidata may show that the problems are not limited to this, they are just background information, not the core of the case. Fram (talk) 09:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@HJMitchell: basically, I'm almost the only editor who has presented any diffs, but apparently not enough for you? Even though you don't present a single diff to support your allegations? Very convincing... Fram (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter. Thanks for the apology. It still isn't clear to me what "incorrect statement" I am presumed to have made, unless you still maintain that a user adding links to his own commercial site (with info you could also get from e.g. the official page) isn't spamming. I attacked the general culture of Wikidata and its admins and bureaucrats, who defend such edits and bots (even now: "actions I performed on Wikidata in good faith, according to Wikidata policies, and which had no immediate relation to Wikipedia (I never imported the data or facilitated the import)" shows a misunderstanding of what Wikidata is apparently intended for, i.e. importing data to wikipedia, and at the same time one of the reasons I made that section, i.e. to highlight the (for enwiki) highly problematic Wikidata policy and its uncritical application by admins and bureaucrats). If you can't stand fair criticism of your actions, you shouldn't be an admin or bureaucrat (or you shouldn't make the actions that get criticized for causing problems). But this case is not about your actions at Wikidata; it is about your actions here, at enwiki. Anyway, you are free to start a case about my "systematic behavior of Fram below standards expected for administrator" (as with all such claims here, again fully without any evidence; but seeing the editor you tried to canvass in your first statement in this case, I think you better think twice about bringing that up if you don't want that editor getting widely criticized for the BLP violations I undid and which are apparently "stalking" and not simply doing what any admin should do). Fram (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Opabinia Regalis: yes, I meant this to be an admin-conduct case only (but thought that "admin conduct" wouldn't be a good casename either). A enwiki vs. Wikidata case may be fruitful, but perhaps should start different from this one. All I want here is some clear indication that admins shouldn't make accusations like "stalking" lightly but have a duty to provide good evidence or retract such claims; and some clerking or arbcom action to maintain some standards at an ArbCom case: not the easy "count the word limit", but the harder things like "no canvassing by pinging uninvolved editors with a known bias" or "no accusations with some evidence provided", which are both pretty basic policy violations. If people can get away with such things at an ArbCom case, then why should we try to enforce these policies anywhere else? Fram (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Wikipedia doesn't equal enwiki. Wikidata is nearly always promoted here, by Wikidata-enthusiasts, as "it is used to provide info at once to all wikipedia languages" and so on; but when there is criticism of the contents, quality, sourcing, then your line suddenly is the official line: it is not for providing info to Wikipedia languages; they may do so, but it is not our goal or core business. Which, coupled with the "we use poor sources and will deprecate them once we get better ones" and so on is exactly one of the reasons I'm opposed to any use of Wikidata on enwiki. Anyway, let me quote what the WMF two months ago said about Wikidata: "Then that's an incomplete understanding. See e.g. [1]: "Wikidata will support the more than 280 language editions of Wikipedia with one common source of structured data that can be used in all articles ". Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC) "[7] As long as this is the official line on Wikidata and the way it is promoted at enwiki, you shouldn't claim that "Your edits show, as usual, misunderstanding of what Wikidata actually is. Many users tried to explain this to you, but you were not really interested in listening." but instead you should realise that depending on what the intention is (promoting Wikidata vs. minimizing the problems with sourcing and so on) two different positions are taken about what Wikidata is for. As it stands, Wikidata is a source of structured data that may not be used in all articles as it fails our basic standards of sourcing and so on. That is not a misunderstandng on my part or a refusal to listen, that is a vast gap between the WMF spiel and reality. As for your second point, "spambot is a bot which adds spam and does nothing else.": no, a spambot is a bot which adds spam. Camouflaging or sugaring this by adding information doesn't mean that it isn't a spambot. Fram (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Peel; now that a second Portuguese Wikipedian has commented, and basically supported my view and indicated that your description of their way of thinking was wrong (" I'm appalled by the impression Mike Peel has of our community" were their actual words), perhaps you would like to strike that example of how I should look at the mirror? Fram (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

(Note: I intend to stop responding to statements like "I struck my only example but my point still stands" or "you should really look at Fram's behaviour, see e.g. this case from 5 years ago which ended at ArbCom and where Fram didn't even get an admonishment and the other side was nearly banned, and this more recent case where the filing party against Fram was shoo'ed away by ArbCom because they basically had no case". It shouldn't be too hard to find a few people who want to combine their grudges and present a case about me, but take your time and find some real evidence instead of this "let's randomly throw out some names, perhaps some people will believe us" approach)

@Opabinia Regalis: fair enough. It would seem strange to have a general case about Wikidata on enwiki starting with this case request, and with me and Ymblanter as involved parties. I think that either you would have a case with no parties (i.e. a case which only looks at the policy questions, some kind of mega-RfC where the ArbCom could act like judges and maintain some order during the proceedings, as a somewhat impartial or at least acceptable party to all sides), or some case with the main vocal parties on both sides (people like myself, Alsee, Jytdog, Mike Peel, PigsontheWing, RexxS, ...) where you look at conduct. But if you intend to have a case which looks at policy about Wikidata, and conduct surrounding the dispute at the same time, I think it will become a massive mess with lots of fallout but no resolution at all. Just my gut feeling, and you are free to deal with this as you see fit of course. Fram (talk) 07:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I obviously gave that impression, but I wanted Ymblanter to be either admonished or desysoped, depending on how severe others judged his actions on enwiki; and considering a recent case about an admin not willing or able to provide evidence for their accusations, which first took up a considerable amount of time and energy at AN only to inevitably end up at ArbCom anyway, it seemed more logical to go to ArbCom directly. This may well have been a wrong choice of course. But again, my goal was not necessarily to see Ymblanter desysoped, but to at least send a strong signal that such actions and accusations are unacceptable: how strong that signal needed to be was (and is) up to ArbCom. Fram (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: I just listed 6 of the more vocal people at the Wikidata discussions from the top of my head, there are plenty of others who have participated in a more or less frequent and constructive manner (including some with (WMF) or (WMDE) in their name). I guess if someone provides enough recent evidence of who are the most problematic and should be parties in a case (assuming prior attempts at conflict resolution have been tried or aren't necessary), that such a case would be possible. To go from a case about one incident to a case about a much larger issue, involving one of the parties, perhaps not the other from this case request, and a host of others, without any evidence being presented (just some "look at these discussions"), seems to be very unusual, and more based on some pre-conceived ideas of the problem than on anything that has actually been presented here (I mean, I e.g. added RexxS name because of some earlier disputes, but I don't believe they have been very involved with these discussions here for quite a while now). What, in my opinion, would be much more fruitful would be one or a series of RfCs abotu the use of Wikidata on enwiki, based on the current situation, and overseen by a group of neutral editors who can enforce some semblance of civility and rationality to it (with the understanding that civil bollocks should be adressed as well, as that as often the cause of a lot of contention: editors remaining calm and civil, but just sprouting nonsense which they can't back up with any evidence). There is already a draft RfC about one specific issue (Wikidata in infoboxes) in the making, but I think a general one would be more useful (after all, why would we have one RfC for infoboxes, and another for things like official websites and twitter accounts, and yet another for listeriabot-like articles, and then another for Article Placeholders, and so on, when a lot of the issues (like sourcing requirements, lack of some policies, ...) are identical anyway). Tackling the core issues instead of the people discussing (sometimes too heated or too personal) these issues seems the best solution; and certainly when no actual case has been presented against any of the 6 I named (or some others) which would actually warrant an ArbCom case. Perhaps such a case can be made for some of them; but already accepting it seems premature. Fram (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Ymblanter

Concerning stalking, I am sure User:LauraHale will have smth to say. What I had to say about it is on my user talk page linked above. I must add two things. First, this encounter is one of the top five the most unpleasant ones I ever had in Wikimedia projects. I do feel seriously offended, and I do not see even a bit of good faith from Fram's side. Second, my limited experience with Fram shows that they never listen to their opponent, they in fact never make any effort to listen to their opponent, but they maintain that they are always right, whereas the opponent is right only when they are fully aligned with Fram's opinion. I believe Fram should at some point look at the mirror. I do not see any merit for accepting the case to be honest. Note also that what they want from me is to edit a closed section of AN. I tried to remove it to avoid being arxived but was reverted.

May be just to make it clear, since Fram continues to maintain this accusation even after I gave clear explanation. I never promoted a spam-bot. I promoted a bot which worked properly [8], and continued working properly, and at some point references which the bot added earlier were changed on the upstream site so that they appeared as spam (after which I took the flag down and cleaned up the edits of the bot example). Accusing me in "promoting spam-bots" is as meaningful as to accuse a Wikipedia crat here who promoted INC to admins in "promoting vandals" because INC started vandalizing Wikipedia much later. This information has been provided on my talk page in the discussion Fram linked above, as well as on Wikidata Project Chat discussion also linked by Fram.

Note that Fram continues misleading the community: I never said "this could happened here as well", nor implied this, nor I actually think this way. Resolved.

Now I am not sure what is going on. If this is the case about my behavior - well, I believe it does not have merit, but at least it is a legit reason to file a case, and it is not up to me to decide what the outcome is. If this is the case about general relations between Wikidata and Wikipedia - I do not understand why it was filed against me. I do not think I ever modified Wikipedia infoboxes to include Wikidata, I left my opinion several times on discussion boards (often to correct incorrect statements about Wikidata), but this is it, unless of course somebody believes that I approved a Wikidata bot on purpose to harm Wikipedia (for the record, I learned only yesterday in the discussion that the results of the bot are being used in Wikipedia). If the case is accepted to investigate connection between Wikidata and Wikipedia I do not see why I should be a party of such a case.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Note that Lugnuts has been indeed long time upset with my existence on Wikipedia - I am not sure why, I apparently even never blocked them - to the point that they mention me in situations I have absolutely no relation to (this is stalking, right?), such as here, so that they were suggested by an uninvolved user to stop it or face a topic ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Note that Fram continues to make deliberately wrong statements about me [9]. Even though I said clearly that I do not care which version of the infobox stays, and I did not vote in the RfC they continue to maintain that I have a "preferred version" thus pretending to know what I think better than I know. This is a blanket, aggressive assumption of bad faith, smth which can be easily traced in Fram's behavior over the years (and which an opening of this case and the statements which preceded it give an excellent example of).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Which they now continue to do in the body of the case.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I see that some users do not understand what I say, let me try again, more clearly. (i) Concerning behavioral issues, what happened was that Fram aggressively attacked me (technically speaking, Wikidata crats knowing the only two are active, and I currently assign a vast majority of the flags). The attack contained an incorrect statement. I overreacted, which I should not have been done, and I apologize for that. Fram attacked me again. Then they requested that I "retract" my statements. I asked them to cross out their statements which caused my reaction in the first term, they refused. Then I refused as well. This is not my typical behavior, I usually manage to stay cool (I can remember four instances when I lost my temper, in five years, and this was the worst one). (ii) I believe Fram has a consistent pattern of assuming bad faith towards multiple users, I fully agree here with Mike Peel (talk · contribs) and HJ_Mitchell (talk · contribs). I actually believe that Arbcom should not accept the case, but if it does, I am sure we will find quite some evidence showing systematic behavior of Fram below standards expected for administrator. (iii) If the case is accepted to investigate general relations of Wikidata and Wikipedia, I do not see why I should be a party of such a case. I never imported data from Wikidata to Wikipedia in any way, and, contrary to what my opponents imply, I believe that both Wikipedia and Wikidata are not currently ready for massive import and integration, in particular, because many Wikipedia users do not understand what Wikidata actually is, and Wikidata has some systemic problems which need to be addressed first. (iv) If somebody wants a case about me for actions I performed on Wikidata in good faith, according to Wikidata policies, and which had no immediate relation to Wikipedia (I never imported the data or facilitated the import) - well, there is little I can do about this, but I believe this is far outside the scope of Arbcom.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: Your edits show, as usual, misunderstanding of what Wikidata actually is. Many users tried to explain this to you, but you were not really interested in listening. I will only make two points relevant for this case, and will likely abstain from commenting on your points in the future, since this seems to be useless. (i) Wikidata is not necessarily to provide data for Wikipedia (aka English Wikipedia), it is for all external reusers. Wikidata has, in particular, data of lower quality (no provenance, or provenance not reliable for Wikipedia standards), which are still added and later can be deprecated if there is better data. It is up to reusers how to use the data. (ii) spambot is a bot which adds spam and does nothing else. On Wikidata, as elsewhere, being a spambot is a block reason. This one also added useful info, thus it is not a spambot. This is likely my last response to Fram, otherwise this case would become another wall of text.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Floq

The internet is 95% eggshells armed with hammers (the other 5% are hammer salesmen). --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Ivanvector

I reverted Ymblanter's removal of the AN thread, it was later collapsed by another user. In my opinion there's no rationale for removing postings from administrative noticeboards rather than allowing them to archive, excepting situations covered by WP:DFTT perhaps. Removing a thread in which one's own conduct is being discussed is particularly inappropriate, it gives the impression of trying either to silence criticism or to bury evidence. You can search an archive, you can't search a revision history.

Regarding the case request, if the folks who approve bots are so reckless in their reviews that they approve a spambot as obvious as Fram makes it out to be, those folks should probably be removed from that responsibility. It does direct harm to English Wikipedia notwithstanding that the actual editing occurs on a sister project, and so it is within this community's remit to object and certainly not "ridiculous" to bring it up on this project. This particular bot introduced to this project obvious reference spam in the form of links to a clearly promotional website, which were also factually incorrect in that the links referred to none of the information supposedly referenced.

I was with Fram's post up to the last paragraph: this was clearly an error. If an admin has made an error in approving a bot, it must be a simple matter to inform them, block the bot and clean up its edits. It's pretty easy to clean up that sort of mess on this project, anyway, I really don't know much about Wikidata. However, I do think it's a pretty big leap for Fram to then say, based on this one incident, that all of Wikidata should be delinked from enwiki and abandoned. Ymblanter may have been justifiably upset that Fram's comment came in the form of an attack on their record, but then again, if Ymblanter's defense of this course of action is an indication of the way things are expected to work at Wikidata, then perhaps Fram has a point.

At any rate I don't think there's a case here. A couple of admins got shouty with each other; we're not expected to be heartless robots. Both seemingly moved on (er, notwithstanding this case request). And as for whether or not to continue linking with Wikidata, that's not something for the Committee to rule on. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Ymblanter added some info after I posted this, which deserves comment. If the sample edits made by the bot linked to valid info at the time of approval and were changed on the external site after the fact to point to spam, then obviously Ymblanter shouldn't be expected to catch that at the time of approval. However I did not see where Ymblanter provided this sensible explanation before posting it above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Alex Shih

(edit conflict) I am unfamiliar with Wikidata, but it does appear there needs to be a lot more oversight. To comment purely on the AN/I thread, I am going to echo the observations made by Ivanvector. I think it would be helpful if Ymblanter could substantiate the timeline of the bot in the forms of diffs in his statement, and then we'll be better informed to look at the exchange between these two editors to determine if there is a case. My opinion is, not really. Alex Shih (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: I do agree with your points. If the committee decides that actions at Wikidata should be subject to review here, I wouldn't have any objections. And I agree it would be helpful if some BAG members can offer their views; I do want to note that (not endorsing) that different wikis have different standards, so I think that could be taken into consideration. On a last note, I would like to ask if it was entirely necessary to make sacarstic remarks ([10]) after you knew the editor was upset by the way you presented your (valid) points ([11]). Just a thought. Alex Shih (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Iridescent

Even though it will be the case from hell, I urge the committee to accept this even though it may not follow the format of a typical case; while the conduct of a couple of admins may be the trigger, someone needs to address the underlying issue. The social interaction between pro- and anti-Wikidata editors, and between the Wikipedia community and the WMF, regarding the Wikidata issue has broken down almost completely, and as I'm sure you're all aware is spilling onto multiple talk pages; at a minimum read this thread (and ideally the whole page, if not the archives as well) to get a feel for just how strained the three-way dispute is getting.

As Fram points out above, the disruption caused by Wikidata is now beginning to impact on Wikipedia articles themselves, but because of Wikidata's fiercely-defended independence there is no mechanism by which we can currently order Wikidata not to take actions that disrupt Wikipedia. (It's also starting to have potential for serious reputational damage to en-wiki, as Google Knowledge Graph et al are starting to draw data from Wikidata but they generally credit it to "Wikipedia"; our reputation for accuracy isn't great as it is without Wikidata doing our legs by refusing to comply with policies on accuracy and sourcing.)

For whatever reason (some would say it's the community's inability to agree, some would say it's intentional stonewalling by the WMF) the community has been unable to agree on the appropriate level of input Wikidata should have on Wikipedia. It needs a structured and moderated discussion to agree on how on-wiki disruption originating at Wikidata is to be handled; the usual methods of RFCs won't be able to handle this, and unless Jimmy has the masochistic urge to take direct control of the debate Arbcom is the only body with the ability to moderate such a discussion and to make whatever conclusions it comes up with binding. (The flow in the other direction, of how information gets from Wikipedia into Wikidata, is their concern and we shouldn't be telling them what level of sourcing etc they should consider appropriate, although that's not to say we should rule out "unless you comply with Wikipedia standards data can't be imported back from Wikidata to Wikipedia" and making the flow of data one-way.) ‑ Iridescent 16:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Rschen7754

I have not read the statements, but looking at the title of the case and having been a steward, and a current admin on both enwiki and Wikidata (and former oversighter at the latter) I anticipate having something to say. --Rschen7754 18:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Now I have read the opening statement, and it was disappointing. tl;dr: why is this case request as framed called "Crosswiki issues" instead of "Ymblanter"? That's what the request seems to be about. Injecting the word "Wikidata" into this request seems to be some rallying cry and some sort of trying to pick a fight with WMF (similar to the words "Visual Editor"), as unfortunately Alex Shih and Iridescent's statements have caved in to. --Rschen7754 18:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I think there are some valid points in your statement, but I don't see how they are relevant to this case as currently described by Fram. I could see a request going forward based on the battleground behavior that took place at some of the links you gave. I also agree with the points raised of ArbCom not being a policy making venue, and not a battering ram to be used against WMF/WMDE/Wikidata. --Rschen7754 18:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC) also @Opabinia regalis: --Rschen7754 18:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur

Endorsing the conclusion from Iridescent. We should be enforcing our standards as we envision them. Wikidata can do whatever the hell it wants. If there's a bot that is making edits automatically to en.WP by importing wikidata content, it should be de-authorized and re-scoped to permit only the most uncontroversial changes (Website of an organization, birth, death, etc.). I do see the case for a set of scripts that editors can use that can incorporate data from Wikidata after the editor has verified the content (much the same way the reFill works). The editor importing the data assumes responsibility for errors or spam sites being inserted into the encyclopedia. Hasteur (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Ritchie333

I grimaced when I came across this request this afternoon, but I think there is a case to answer for some of the problems Wikidata has imposed on this project. The reports of vandalism going undetected and left to fester are worrying, and the trench warfare and divisive rhetoric exhibited at the TfDs for Template:Infobox person/Wikidata ([12], [13]) and Template:Cite Q ([14]), plus the related ANI thread clearly demonstrate that this is an intractable dispute that is going to require Arbcom to look at. And it tangentially involves infoboxes, which is probably the mother of all WP disputes of all time. So I'm afraid there is a requirement for a case. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: There are more substantial grounds for a case, but it's spread out over more users. See the four debates I linked to here, plus this infobox discussion,this other ANI thread (where the closing administrator suggested Arbcom), and this AN discussion, plus mild edit-warring on Wikipedia:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs. In all cases, discussions start off sensible but end up with deeply-entrenched bickering. I could go on if you need more, but I'd rather not. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: In the ANI thread I mentioned here (in archive 945), you said "IMHO this situation is getting awfully close to something for ArbCom to handle" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: It's not really fair to single people out - though there have been multiple contentious discussions, the participants are not consistent. However, if I had to pick two editors who just cannot get along, it would be Fram and pigsonthewing. Recent examples include the edit-warring I mentioned above and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive964#Further pointy behaviour by Pigsonthewing which was hatted by Primefac, who admonished the pair of them with "ENOUGH. Fram and Andy, I respect you both, but your conduct here is not making either of your cases better". Yet in the past couple of days I can see "Get the beam out of your own eye" and "Yes, improving articles is such a POINTy action, perhaps you should report me to the wiki-authorities for my actions." I don't think an interaction ban between the pair would work as they are pretty much the strongest pro and anti Wikidata proponents on the whole project, and it would probably send a chilling effect to everyone else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: Fram started the case specifically because they wanted to desysop Ymblanter : "I'll think about it and let you know if and when I start an ArbCom request (no sense going to ANI as they can't desysop anyway)." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: In their latest statement, Fram has identified six editors as potential participants in a "conduct in Wikidata discussions" case - that might be a suitable starting point. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Mendaliv

If this is to be a desysopping case, then I believe it is premature and not sufficiently serious to merit opening a case. The discussion was unpleasant, but I don't see any claim in the complaint of such a significant pattern of departures from minimum standards of administrative conduct that desysopping would ever be merited. Thus, I believe any aspect of Ymblanter's conduct could and should be addressed first in the context of an AN/ANI thread.

If, on the other hand, this is to be a case about Wikidata, I believe there has been insufficient policymaking activity at the community level that the Committee could render a decision on Wikidata's use without exceeding its jurisdiction with respect to rulemaking (see WP:ARBPOL#Policy and precedent).

That said, there may be sufficient grounds to hold a case focused on individuals' conduct in the context of Wikidata policymaking discussions. If the Committee chooses to accept such a case, I would respectfully suggest that the scope be tightly limited to prevent disruption and chilling of policymaking discussions that should happen.

Statement by ChristianKl

I think it's completley unfair to call the bot in question a spam bot. As far as I'm aware no involved party made a claim that data added by the bot in question was wrong. What is this bot about? Scorum is a new website that stores sport statistics and that wants to use the blockchain while doing so. The bot did 605 edits on Wikidata. During the edits it created items like https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q38073146 which are about the scores of Japanese football teams. This is not information that gets automatically imported by enwiki without the additional template that the user created. Whether or not enwiki wants such templates is a pure enwiki issue that's beyond Wikidata's policy decisions.

As every good bot, the bot in question provides references. Unfortunately, Scorum changed their internal URL layout and as a result the references didn't point anymore to the sport data but to their front page with makes a sales pitch for their for a cryptocurrency that backs the website. When we noticed the change, we blocked the bot. A few days later the website fixed their internal links and as a result all the links now go to the correct page that lists the correct data and that doesn't try to sell you on the cryptocurrency.

It seems to me like the argument of Flam is because Wikidata allowed a bot who created items about Japanese sport scores that don't get imported anywhere into Wikipedia and the bot takes the data from a startup (and thus messed up their urls for a week) this shows that editoral judgements at Wikidata are so bad that Wikipedia shouldn't use Wikidata and the person who's responsible for allowing that bot to operate should be desysopped. ChristianKl (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13

While I'm not sure if this is the best interaction to bring this to the forefront, the relation between editors in support of Wikidata and those who find some aspects of that project troubling has been problematic for a while. I urge the Committee to accept this case with a relatively broad scope that focuses more on the topic area than individual editors. In particular, I've seen quite a few editors in support of Wikidata that seem to prefer trampling over the community when expanding Wikidata integration. I've seen quite a few editors opposing Wikidata who respond to those attempts in wholly uncivil manners. The problematic behavior needs to stop from both sides. I would also not oppose a motion to apply discretionary sanctions to the topic area without a full case. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Opabinia regalis: The policies are not in your purview. The conduct during discussions of policy (and policy creation) very much is. I think this case can and should proceed very similarly to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. (See, I can be brief!) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by OID

Just a few things.

1. ENWP has no authority to tell Wikidata how to run its own shop. If an admin/editor there takes actions on Wikidata within its own (lack of) policy framework, that is Wikidata's problem.

2. If the actions the admin/editor make on wikidata impact on ENWP content, it is perfectly acceptable to take them to task here if they break ENWP's policies.

3. If the admin/editor on wikidata knows *in advance* that something they approve on wikidata which is in line with wikidata (lack of) policy framework, but is prohibited on ENWP and *will* impact on ENWP, then there is no reason they cannot be sanctioned for it. The ENWP editor has taken actions off-wiki that has directly affected on-wiki content.

4. Given the above 3 points there is a case for looking at the behavior of various editors heavily involved in Wikidata and their pushing of Wikidata material onto ENWP. Specifically in relation to templates, unsourced/unacceptably sourced material, edit-warring, tendentious editing around infobox/templates etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by GoldenRing

I think this case request, and many of the disputes surrounding it, boil down to this question:

Since content from wikidata is imported into en-wiki articles, where is the policy boundary between en-wiki and wikidata?

This is a difficult and complicated policy question and the community is showing signs of being deeply divided over it in a way that makes it unlikely to be readily resolved by consensus.

To relate this question to the case request, one way of looking at the facts described is that the owners of a startup commercial sports statistics website inserted links to their website as references on the English wikipedia. It seems pretty clear that if an editor had done this directly, by hand, they would be swiftly blocked for refspamming (IMO the external link restructuring that resulted in links to cryptocurrency sales is a distraction here). It follows that any request for this task to be done by a bot on en-wiki would be refused.

The complexity comes because those references were inserted on wikidata, where (apparently) this sort of thing is in line with policy. Someone else independently used a template on en-wiki which imports live data and references from wikidata - not those refspam data and references specifically, but a much wider category of data and references which encompassed the refspam. It is very likely that this template was added to articles before the refspam was added to wikidata.

Given that the refspam is unacceptable on en-wiki, how do we deal it? Some options I can see are:

1. Blame the person who made the actual edit on en-wiki using the template, even though when they made the edit, the content on wikidata may have been compliant with en-wiki policy. This would effectively ban templates that import data from wikidata, but is attractive because it's the easiest to implement and involves no questions of cross-wiki policy. This approach is evident in the discussion around {{Cite Q}} linked above.
2. Blame the person who made the edit on wikidata. This would mean exporting en-wiki policy to wikidata, in this case requiring that all sourcing on wikidata comply with WP:RS. This gives us maximum benefit from wikidata in return for maximum cross-wiki policy headaches. We have no practical way at present of doing this and it raises even more complicated questions when other wikis get involved.
3. Blame the person who authorised the bot task because they happen to edit actively at en-wiki and so can be sanctioned here as a proxy for being sanctioned there for violating en-wiki policies at wikidata and didn't respond in the absolute best possible manner to hostile questions about it. This is a fairly course caricature of this dispute.
4. Accept that content that comes from wikidata doesn't always meet our policies on sourcing and make an exception to those policies for it.

Like it or not, option 4 is pretty much how things are in practice now. It strikes me as a theoretically-unjustifiable-but-pragmatic solution if wikidata keeps their house in reasonable-enough order. The disputes are coming because, on the one hand, people are only just realising that this is how things are and starting to object and, on the other hand, disruptive editors of most types are realising that wikidata is a less-monitored way of getting their particular disruptive material (such as refspam) onto en-wiki.

These are hard questions to answer and on the one hand I don't think the committee ought to answer them while on the other hand the community seems unable to answer them. GoldenRing (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 makes a good point above that, whatever you think of the policy questions, editor conduct around those questions has been suboptimal. GoldenRing (talk) 11:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: I said above that I don't think the committee ought to answer these questions and the more I think about it, the more I am of this opinion. In particular (and I think the last part of your comment is on the same general lines of thought), I think there is a real danger that, if the committee accepts this case with a scope that includes answering any of the questions above, the resulting answers will, in large part, be determined by the committee's inability to create policy. These are questions that need to be answered with all possible answers on the table, as far as possible; having arbcom answer them takes too many possible answers off the table before we even begin. On the other hand, of course, arbcom has a substantially better chance of actually, you know, arriving at any answer at all. GoldenRing (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee

Just a note that User talk:ScorumME suggests that the stats company in question is engaged in some sort of legal issue relating to Wikipedia WMF. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by ArthurPSmith

I operate a bot on Wikidata (also I am a property creator), and I spoke (in 3 sessions) at the 5-th year birthday Wikidatacon last weekend. I have occasionally contributed to the bot approval process on Wikidata where Ymblanter has done stellar work for years as our main bot approver. His work would be FAR easier if there were more eyeballs there to help. Every English wikipedia editor is welcome to review Wikidata bot proposals and provide their votes on the matter, this would be a tremendous improvement on the 2 or 3 people we have now who take an interest in this. Wikidata is a worldwide open community, there is no reason why English wikipedia editors cannot have a significant influence on how it progresses and improves. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Lugnuts

Wikidata aside, there's the main issue with WP:ADMINCOND, which states "Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another" and WP:ADMINACCT: "Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions". Ymblanter removed the section from ANI, which contains the incivil comments of "aka fucking lie" and "Ok, go fucking ahead to arbcom", which fails both of the above. Now Ymblanter knows this kind of languge and behaviour is not acceptable, as when it's done to him, he requests that someone should teach them manners. If admins are allowed to speak to other users/admins like this, it sets a worringly bad trend and gives a strong message to the rest of the community about what type of individual they are. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I see Ymblanter has tried the old stalking card (he's already used this against Fram!) with his retort, above, which contains this link, which also contains a reply from Fram calling admins who beg for thanks "pathetic", which is what Ymblanter did when he was bemoaning cleaning up backlogs and not getting the appreication from his peers. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero

I urge the committee to look into this issue; particularly the conduct on all sides of the wikidata dispute. There is a bull in a china shop approach that I am seeing from several people that gives me the feeling of Deja Vous.

I will remind everyone that our sister projects are not subservient to us. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

I think this needs to be taken as a case, regardless of the scope that ArbCom is capable of. Iridescent probably covered most of the issues above, but the very simple fact that the processes (and in some cases those administering them) at Wikidata are clearly not fit for purpose needs to be addressed. We cannot allow enwiki to be a target for possible spam and vandalism due to the poor processes at another project. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish

OID's statement above says everything I would have, in more compact form.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Observation and suggestion by Dax

This appears, at first glance, to be a GovCom-esque situation. Since ArbCom's jurisdiction does not reach beyond the realm of enwiki, I suggest that they accept and directly refer to the WMF board to make the binding decisions as to the interaction of enwiki-wikidata policies and/or craft policies dictating that data changes imported from wikidata be subject to PC1/PC2 before it is shown to readers. Dax Bane 20:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Alsee: The wikidata community has approximately zero interest in WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:refspam, or anything else. Hence my suggestion to punt this case up to the WMF board. They can, and should, create Wikidata:BLP, Wikidata:V et al to curb this (in as much as the Five Pillars here are WMF policy and not really subject to revision by the community (correct me if I'm wrong, and I probably am) Dax Bane 06:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Alsee: Points taken, then I guess the only remaining option is to subject Wikidata to the same criteria that we apply to the likes of the NY Times, WSJ, Washington Post, etc (and the same sanctions should people violate it) - surely someone at the foundation would notice that one of their largest projects (enwp) has refused to use a sister project because it's considered an unreliable source

Statement by Hawkeye7

1. ENWP has no authority to tell Wikidata how to run its own shop. (WP:CONEXCEPT)
2. While ArbCom has sanctioned admins for actions taken outside ENWP, it is wrong to do so for decisions taken in good faith under the policies and procedures of another project.
3. Commons remains by far the worst offender.
4. While ArbCom could develop procedures for interaction with WikiData, I do not feel that this would be the best venue for what would best require considerable discussion.
5. I believe Mike Peel has his Wikidata ID tattooed on him.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

In the light of further comments, I have struck two of mine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010

Ymblanter should never have approved the bot at Wikidata in the first place and their actions at ANI and god knows where else haven't helped but for me atleast the main issue in all of this is Wikidata and the fact it's so "understaffed" (yes we're volunteers but I can't think of a better word!) - I believe only a year or 2 ago Wikidata ended up at ANI because of page vandalism over there, Something needs sorting but dunno what or even how. –Davey2010^Talk 03:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

Three things lead me to ask the committee to take this case 1) the EN community is institutionally ignorant of Wikidata, because it is not us; 2) the importation of content onto ENWP is a conduct matter, and systematic importation is a "serious" conduct issue; and 3) per ARBPOL: "The Committee does not rule on content, but may propose means by which community resolution of a content dispute can be facilitated."

We, the ENWP community, need a systematic investigation, which only this committee is set up to provide - and we should not wait around for more disputes to arise, as that is prizing bureaucracy above just helping us out, here. Sure, the committee may fail in their investigation, and sure, the committee may not arrive at good proposals for RfC's and the like, and sure, you may not love this work, especially if it leads to nothing immediately useful. But, I ask that you try. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Observation by Beyond My Ken

Guerillero: I will remind everyone that our sister projects are not subservient to us.

True, but neither are we required to accept content from them if that content violates en.wiki policies. I would encourage everyone to remember this, and keep alive the possibility that a potential solution if Wikidata doesn't serve its customer (us) properly, is to simply cut them off and not allow Wikidata content on en.wiki.

Of course, that's not in the remit of the Committee (although the behavior of editors and admins in relation to the WD controversy obviously is), and has to be determined by the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Mike Peel

I'm afraid that my view of Fram vs Ymblanter here is that it's the pot calling the kettle black. Ymblanter summarised the situation extremely well by saying about Fram that "they never listen to their opponent, they in fact never make any effort to listen to their opponent, but they maintain that they are always right, whereas the opponent is right only when they are fully aligned with Fram's opinion. I believe Fram should at some point look at the mirror." As someone that's been on the receiving end of this *a lot* over the last few months, I can vouch for the fact that it's extremely frustrating, and can seriously wind up the other party (for me it lead to me posting [15]). However, Ymblanter's responses are clearly inappropriate and should not have been posted. If this case is investigated, then I think that the behaviour of both parties needs to be equally looked into.

There is also the wider question about Wikidata usage, which I don't think should be included here. There is a draft RfC on Wikidata usage being drafted at Wikipedia:Wikidata/2017 RfC draft that will hopefully ultimately lead to consensus between the different perspectives here. The behaviour around this work could be investigated (a good place to start to see the hostility involved is Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs), but I think that's a separate/wider case than the one described in the first few statements here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: BTW, I'm not aware of anyone with a Wikidata tattoo. I'm personally against tattoos. Mike Peel (talk) 08:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: I think the evidence here is clear on the pages I've linked to above. In particular, see the discussion on the 2017 State of affairs page - I quite liked the way you were insisting that things were happening on the Portuguese Wikipedia in a certain way *despite* a Portuguese Wikipedian explaining that you were wrong! I don't have sour grapes over "losing the RfC", as demonstrated by my ongoing engagement there at Template_talk:Infobox_World_Heritage_Site#Implementation_of_RfC where I've proposed an interim solution while the full implementation is discussed/carried out, although you're continuing to not listen to what I'm saying there (which has been consistent in all of your posts in the RfC discussion). Mike Peel (talk) 08:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: I've partially struck my comment there, but that still doesn't change the point I made in my previous comment. You always think you are absolutely right, and ignore any opinions to the contrary. That's not healthy/constructive. Mike Peel (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Alsee: You seem to be ignoring the cleanup work I did at the same time as switching uses of Infobox World Heritage Site to use Wikidata, at the same time as I was making sure that the info on Wikidata that was being used in the infobox matched what was being displayed on enwp and what UNESCO's records specified. This is one of the main reasons that I'm resisting simply reverting the edits I made before, as doing so would re-introduce a lot of errors to enwp - it's better to substitute the corrected data instead, which I've offered to do in good faith by coding up a bot that could substitute the Wikidata values. Of course, there are still several hundred WHS infoboxes that I hadn't managed to clean up before the RfC intervened, which should be the priority! If you can point me towards useful content that was actually deleted then I'm happy to restore it... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Harry

I have no dog in this fight; I can see both the usefulness and the pitfalls of Wikidata. I just feel compelled to point out that Fram has a long track record of railroading projects and groups and particularly editors he disagrees with and this case is perfectly on form: a wall of text, lots of allegations, and just a handful of diffs which show an editor with a good track record getting a bit terse. As usual, Fram starts with a legitimate point (in this case, that there are problems with [some of] the content being imported from Wikidata) but advocates for an extreme solution and bludgeons the process and drowns his opponents in walls of text across multiple venues, all the while refusing to assume good faith or budge an inch from his position. In other words, the kind of thing that leads normally level-headed editors to despair. If there is to be a case, I would ask that Fram's conduct be very closely examined. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: A few diffs would not illustrate the pattern because there's nothing obviously wrong with any of Fram's individual comments, but look at his interactions with Rich Farmbrough. With Magioladitis. With Cwmhiraeth. With the entire DYK project (and I'm sure I've missed some). Compare and contrast that with his conduct here. I don't question the purity of Fram's motives; I expect he feels he's doing what's right for Wikipedia and to a certain extent he has a point. The problem is with the wars of attrition he wages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Dank

What jumped out at me as I read the comments was that almost everyone either wants Arbcom to take this case or doesn't express a strong preference. Generally, you don't get people agreeing on anything when tackling these issues. And within the last day, two arguable no votes have clarified their positions: Hawkeye has now struck (in part ... thanks Hawkeye), and GoldenRing gave me an explanation of his position (worth reading) on his talk page.

Repeating what I said there: Arbcom is much more likely not to fix something that they could actually fix than the other way around; there is little chance that they will go all bull-in-a-china-shop. They may go the other direction, and do something minimal and limited to just the two principal parties. But even a minimal ruling can be one important step along the way, as people grapple with this very extensive and tough problem. Arbcom is hesitating, and I can understand that ... they're not masochists. But I think it would be good to apply peer pressure to get them to step up and do the right thing, the necessary thing [I mean taking the case, not deciding in a particular way ... that's not my call], and a unanimous case request would be a suitable form of peer pressure. IMO, Arbcom is a kind of single point of failure for Wikipedia ... if they turn away from disputes that can legitimately be framed as ongoing policy violations and that can't be solved elsewhere, then the whole dispute-resolution system fails.

Statement by Beetstra

I applaud the system of WikiData, but do see some large problems with the system which are hard to resolve. Either we live with it, or we act against it. I do not think that the community will be able to resolve this, though I think also that this would not be a case for ArbCom to resolve. However, it affects the community's, and (previous) ArbCom decisions.

My largest issues with WikiData are the ones regarding to whom actions are attributed, ban/block evasion effects, 'editor choice' and plain disruption.

1. One can perform edits on WikiData which change data on en.wikipedia which do not get 'recorded' (they may get noticed by editors who have a page here watchlisted and see 'changes on WikiData'). Some of that data gets only 'recorded' upon the next edit performed to the page (most notably: transclude an external link from WikiData, change that on WikiData to a new link which matches an en.wikipedia or global spam-blacklist rule, and the next editor who edits the page here on en.wikipedia (even if they just add a space, or correct a typo) will run into an edit failure that is caused by the blacklist block, and their failed edit will be recorded as their edit in the spam blacklist log.
2. Automated transclusion of data could have editors who are banned/restricted on en.wikipedia to perform certain actions (or all, if blocked/sitebanned), to de facto edit en.wikipedia (their edits on WikiData directly changes the content displayed on en.wikipedia). (note that to a much smaller extend, that could happen through commons as well, though the effective changes are limited to changing images on other wikis, here the effect can be much larger).
3. If local editors chose to override data of WikiData, it gets flagged as 'incorrect', 'dissimilar' etc. Chose to blindly transclude from WikiData, then policies on WikiData could enforce their format in conflict with local formats. (follow changes to Category:Official website different in Wikidata and Wikipedia‎‎ for an (unenforced) flavour of this).
4. Bot edits on WikiData can disrupt local watchlists to a maximum - if an editor (like me) decides needs to check both bot edits ánd WikiData edits, watchlists can become utterly useless if a extremely high-speed bot on WikiData (hundreds of edits per minute) is running through articles of your interest (I know that I can turn both off, but that also means I do miss pertinent data in my watchlist).

en.wikipedia is not prepared for this, does not have procedures in place. In the meantime, we do run into arguments that practically say 'we need to do this on en.wikipedia because we need the data to make WikiData better', are strongly pushed to use WikiData for data (or simply it is implemented 'because we can'), and are strongly pushed to streamline to improve WikiData. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Somewhat related is this discussion by User:Simon Villeneuve. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
• I fail to see how transclusions of {{Wikidata property}}, either in mainspace (see .e.g. Author#References) or in meta-namespaces (diffs by User:Pigsonthewing) in any form contribute improve articles on en.wikipedia. diff by User:Magioladitis is of a similar nature. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Question: In how far is this yet another drive of the WMF pushing something onto a community, like the MediaViewer, Flow, ...? Is this running into yet another fait accomply, where we will have massive problems returning back to a time 'before' WikiData. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Wnt

From what I've seen, Wikidata has a history of not doing things we want and doing things we don't want. Therefore, I think it is a no-brainer that material should not be transcluded from Wikidata into Wikipedia except in tightly limited cases where we have pretty solid assurances that they will be up to Wikipedia standards, with prior (Wikipedia) community approval. Editors should be encouraged to subst Wikidata templates where they provide useful information now, with the editor responsible for checking the substed content before saving. Editors might be discouraged from transclusions by having an edit filter warn them before proceeding or having it flag their edits for some kind of review. Editors should be encouraged to link to Wikidata, in whatever format, as an external resource; specifically, substed Wikidata links should contain an update link that editors or Wikipedia-authorized bots can use to resubst them with new data. That said, I am not sure ArbCom has much role in doing all of this; I'm putting this idea out there as an idea in case this all finds a community RFC at some point. Wnt (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Alsee

Note on User talk:ScorumME's legal issue: I reported the company to WMF legal for trademark concerns. Their main page was advertizing that they had a "partner" relationship with Wikipedia. Apparently anyone who edits Wikipedia is a Wikipedia-partner, chuckle. I think this helps illuminate this company's edits.

Iridescent and GoldenRing have given excellent summaries of the situation, as well as Ritchie333 who provided important links.

Defining the scope of this case will be difficult. In the narrow scope, Ymblanter's accusation of "stalking" was an unsupported accusation due to repeated natural encounters. The escalation with things like "go fucking ahead to arbcom" was clearly inappropriate, but in isolation it's rather small for an ARMCOM case.

In a wierd bit of defence of Ymblanter, the bot which they approved at Wikidata was probably acceptable by wikidata-community-norms. However this "defense of Ymblanter" is really just a condemnation of the wikidata community. The bot was a blatant refspambot even before it was approved. The bot was spamming self-promotional refs to a dubious startup company. As GoldenRing notes, it's mere distraction that the referenced website changed after approval. This instance perfectly illustrates the problem. EnWiki has no business controlling wikidata, but if we auto-import wikidata then this is the kind of thing we have to expect. The wikidata community has approximately zero interest in WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:refspam, or anything else. A bot approved at wikidata can fill wikipedia articles with predatory references. And that's without even considering issues with wikidata content itself.

The WP:Wikidata/2017 RfC draft in theory could help sort out how to handle wikidata. However I anticipate the RFC will land us close to where we are now. Consensus has heavily shifted against wikidata since the initial deployment. However people who aren't closely familiar with the issue tend to seek a theoretical middleground. Unfortunately the benefits and problems of wikidata are an inseparable package. If the middle-voice of consensus seeks a middleground, it will just leave enthusiasts and critics battling endlessly.

At Template_talk:Infobox_World_Heritage_Site we are dealing with over 1400 articles that need cleanup. This is no routine infobox squabble. Wikipedia content was massively deleted from these infoboxes to clear the way for auto-display of wikidata values. It now appears intractable to recover the deleted content from article history. The person who deleted it certainly isn't interested doing the work of digging through article history. Instead they propose adding insult to injury. Their "cleanup" solution is to run a bot which would simply overwrite all of the deleted wikipedia content with wikidata content.

I don't know if or how ARBCOM can address the broader issue, but I plea for something. Wikidata-enthusiasts think it's find to boldly show up at a random template and "improve" it with wikidata, no consensus needed. The disruption of converting just ONE template to wikidata, and converting it back, can be massive to the point of irreparable. Alsee (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dax Bane: I think it would be dubious to ask the WMF board to order Wikidata to create polices. First, having policies means squat if the community's mission and culture have little genuine interest in doing the work to enforce them. Second, I think it implausible they would apply the range policies and criteria-level we would want. Is the WMF-board really going to order Wikidata to define&prohibit refspam? Third, EnWiki isn't the only wiki involved. I believe some language-wikipedias have partial or strict requirements that sources be in their own language, or other random policies. Fourth, having such policies enforced effectively at wikidata would be an improvement but it still leaves a mess of other issues. Fifth, the Wikidata community is too small to police vandalism on their content as-it-is. They have a ridiculously high bot-percentage, and the supposed "wikidata editor count" is massively bloated with people who don't actually edit wikidata. When anyone moves or deletes a page, the software generates a matching edit at wikidata. All of those people get fictitiously added to the count of active wikidata editors. Alsee (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Jytdog

• The general principles for use of Wikidata in Wikipedia are very much undefined. Fwiw i started an essay Wikipedia:Use of Wikidata in Wikipedia that i hope can be developed into a guideline and maybe policy eventually. But there is nothing close to consensus (i.e. policy) on this now. Arbcom doesn't make policy, it interprets and applies it. There is really nothing for Arbcom to do on this general issue, since there is no real policy to interpret.
• With regard to the conflict between Fram and YMblanter... in my view YMblanter lost it a bit in the conflict with Fram. Admins are human, and this happens. With an acknowledgement from them that they lost it and did things they have sanctioned others for, this should be let go, with an admonishment. If they won't do that.. well, that is over my paygrade.
• With regard to YMblanter's bad judgement in approving a spambot in Wikidata -- and their refusal to even acknowledge that this was bad judgement -- I remain aghast, but this is not a matter for en-WP Arbcom. (Fwiw, I believe their claim that the cryptocurrency scam was not apparent at first, but the CORPNAME of the account, the stated intention to use the bot only to add links to their own website, and the newness of the company and its website, were all very apparent, and the decision to approve that bot remains incomprehensible to me. There is a discussion at the WD Chat page, here about that decision, where the initial approval is getting some support, which is ... very disheartening. And to me, speaks to whether the en-WP community and the other WMF projects and users of WD, should trust the WD community to keep rank spam out of Wikidata... but this is a matter for our eventual "Use of Wikidata in Wikipedia" policy)
• There ~may~ be an Arbcom case, with respect to behavior/process of those deploying Wikidata in en-WP. In my view, two existing policies are not being followed in these efforts, namely WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BOT. The latter, due to the automated nature of the way that Wikidata is deployed via templates and infoboxes, such that changes to Wikidata can affect many articles, all at once. CONSENSUS, with respect to the general norm that we ask people to get prior consensus before making systematic changes. This place is a balance between BOLD and CONSENSUS - between libertarian and communitarian ideologies... and the Wikidata advocates are being overly BOLD in making changes that have widespread effects. If Arbcom does go in this direction, in my view WMF employees with en-WP accounts should be made parties to the case, due to their choices to display Wikidata content on en-WP articles on mobile and in the apps - systematic changes to en-WP content.

The outcome of such a case would, I would hope, establish a more clear process for pre-approving uses of Wikidata which ~should~ calm things down, and would also set up a situation in which common themes and decision-bases will eventually emerge and be identified in the specific discussions, that will become the living en-WP policy on "Use of Wikidata in en-WP". Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Callencac, If there is a case about conduct, I was looking to the outcome there, and imaging what "principles" and "findings of fact" would emerge. I reckon that issues of civility will arise as well. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

This should be declined. The first word of the request says it all:

Yesterday...

If something that happened yesterday is deemed to be beyond the community's ability to resolve, then Heaven help Arbcom! (And Heaven help us all.)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC).

Statement by Jc86035

This whole thing is a mess, and shows why this page has already gone back to the same editors yelling at the same WMF employees and developers because the people who don't like yelling as much are probably ignoring these discussions on the village pumps and elsewhere, because of the toxic environment and the low probability that they're actually going to solve anything out of arguing with mostly the same people.

Putting aside the discussion between the two editors in question, it's clear that there does need to be improvement in Wikidata policy, particularly in regards to sourcing statements from RSes and the bot approval process (and a myriad problems unrelated to this particular case). I think ArbCom should take this case, if only to spare editors from 50KB of arguing about the same old things. I also agree with the initial statements of BU Rob13 and Alanscottwalker. Jc86035 (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Some examples of the same argument about the same thing (although not necessarily involving WMF employees on the pro-Wikidata side) are this TfD discussion and the one below it, this AN/I discussion, and probably more in the history of this page. (Toxic/unwelcoming environment includes Wikidata forums at times, but out of scope for this case.) Nothing gets resolved, because there is community consensus that Wikidata can be used, but there are issues which have obviously not been solved yet and which will probably be slowly fought over until the heat death of the universe at this rate. ArbCom has no jurisdiction over Wikidata but I would hope that things improve on Wikidata as well. Jc86035 (talk) 07:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by GRuban

@Rich Farmbrough: That is a point, but, you see, at that time:

All our troubles seemed so far away

Now it looks as though they're here to stay

Sorry, couldn't resist. More seriously, this is a long term, issue affecting the entire project, with an argument between experienced editors, and one important party being an administrator accused of using their powers to intimidate. No endorsement of whether that's the actual situation, but if there has ever been a case description that had Arbcom written all over it, that's it. Time for them to don their powdered wigs and earn their high pay. --GRuban (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by TonyBallioni

Per my statement below, I encourage the committee to hear this as a full case within the confines of existing policy, as a longterm dispute that the community has been unable to solve and will likely be unable to solve regardless of whether or not an RfC is launched. I think there is likely a case that can be addressed here within existing policy, and I urge the committee to look at it rather than pushing this off into what will likely be an RfC that gets little input beyond people already involved in the dispute. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• I'd like to further add here that I fully endorse Iridescent's comments below, and I think that a case would likely be the simplest way to address this, but whatever is done, it should be moderated and under the aegis of in some way ArbCom. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw

I think Arbcom should decline this case and simply state that the filing party and the party filed against need to remain civil. This issue is actually a WMF versus en.wiki situation and as such is beyond the purview of what ArbCom can do. To save time, I can almost guarantee what they WILL be stating two months from now:

• They will remind everyone of the civility policies
• They will admonish both parties and most likely caution multiple other participants for uncivil behavior
• They probably will have to ban someone who won't drop the stick
• They probably will impose some superficial restrictions on some of the other players
• They will say that use of wikidata-compliant syntax is to be decided on an article-by-article basis based on consensus of contributing editors
• They will say that WMF projects and tech are outside their scope of authority to address

So, I suggest that ArbCom cut to the chase, decline the case, issue trout at both parties and tell them to cool their jets and avoid the topic and each other for a week or two. As for Wikidata, there is a screaming need to make it something that normal editors can easily access and repair from article space without needing a computer science degree. I'm personally for the concept in theory, but implementation in practice has been a problem, most of which has been discussed exhaustively elsewhere. Montanabw^(talk) 22:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Recuse since I've made a statement. GoldenRing (talk) 11:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Crosswiki issues: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <2/1/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Awaiting any additional statements, which should not contain this metaphor, which now comes into my head every time Wikidata is mentioned. More seriously, I'd appreciate thoughts on what a case could properly resolve. Would this be a user-conduct or admin-conduct case, or a "how should Wikidata be used on En-Wiki?" case? If the former, is there enough fodder here for a case? If the latter, would we be able to decide anything without creating policy, which ArbCom is generally not supposed to do? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I bet there's someone out there with their favorite Wikidata item number tattooed on themselves... Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: I have outlined a possible motion for consideration, in the section just below. Comments on the proposed motion, from both arbitrators and other editors, would be welcome. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Floq's just here trying to market his eggshell-armor business. I wonder why that stuff doesn't sell nearly as well as the hammers? ;)
  I agree that it is rather unclear as written whether this is intended to be a user-conduct case or a more general one about wikidata - the title suggests the latter but most of the text seems focused on the details of one very recent (and perhaps stressful, but not, to my eyes, particularly arbcomworthy) disagreement. If this is meant to be a user-focused case, then it seems thin despite the length - in the absence of evidence of problems beyond "we had an argument the other day and it got heated", I'd decline that case. If this is meant to be a more general case about wikidata-related disputes, I am not sure the issue really falls under our purview, but could be convinced by a good (and please, brief) argument in favor. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Fram: Fair enough on the case name issue. I gather from your post that you did intend this to be a narrower, user-focused case? Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Fram: Thanks for the reply. I am still not convinced that a user-conduct case is necessary based on a single heated disagreement, and I am rarely further convinced by citing responses to a case request as evidence that the case is needed. I would decline a case about Ymblanter in particular. However, I am leaning toward accepting a case about the broader Wikidata dispute - comments in favor, by people who rarely turn up to advocate for more arbcom cases, are persuasive. But that's a bit awkward because I don't think Fram should have to stand as the filing party for a case with a significantly different scope than the one he envisioned (though I suppose the designation doesn't matter all that much in the end). Fram, what do you mean by your comment that such a case should start differently?
    On the subject of a potential "Wikidata integration dispute" case: I realize the scope is unclear, but nevertheless, there is a lot of commentary here that is unambiguously off-topic. If you think that Ymblanter made an error in his capacity as a bureaucrat at Wikidata, you're in the wrong place. If you think that Wikidata's bot approval process should be different, you're in the wrong place. If you think that Wikidata's sourcing policies should be different, you're in the wrong place. Those are Wikidata issues and you should take them up there. This is not wikidata:Complaints Department. A case request is supposed to be an opportunity to discuss whether we should take the case, not a forum in which to advocate for your side of the dispute
    The Wikidata issue is absolutely my least favorite kind of on-wiki dispute - the kind where two sides both have reasonable points, but have dug their heels in so hard that they've convinced themselves they're objectively correct and the other side is full of idiots. (If you're thinking "Well, I'm not like that! Maybe there's been a few regrettable mistakes on my part, but they're forgivable considering how unreasonable the other side is", then yes, I'm talking about you.) I'm not sure if that dynamic means we should take the case, because it's obviously not getting solved on its own, or that we should decline it, because the notoriously adversarial environment of an arbcom case will just make it worse. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm just jumping in here to pick up a point raised by Fram and OR. Firstly, though I think OR's comment about what this request are and are not is spot on (and I wish I had thought to say it :) ) as well as her comments on the nature of this dispute. Back to the reason I'm jumping in, my intention, if we are to open a case, would be a general case about conduct in relation to this case and not about the policy question itself (which we'd probably need to step around anyway). My intention here would be that we 'break the back of the dispute' by removing those who are most disruptive and railroading the process and maybe authorising some editors/admins to conduct a "moderated discussion" (possibly under discretionary sanctions) like we've done in the past (I think with the Tea Party Movement). I don't really have a problem with opening a case on somewhat of a tangent ("Wikidata integration dispute") to what was originally proposed (Ymblanter) as long as we're open with what our intention is and that we're seriously considering (and deciding on) the scope and parties (Fram's suggestions, plus maybe Ymblanter, look like a good starting point, remembering that we can add more as we go if needed). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• I might be interested in a general case but like Opabinia I'd have to be convinced that it is something within our remit. I don't yet see a compelling need for a user-related case. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• I think GoldenRing's comments on the policy-related issue is pretty accurate, but is IMHO outside of the Committee's jurisdiction to decide (if there are other policy implications, that could obviously change my opinion here). I haven't yet read enough to decide whether there are sufficient conduct issues that the community has either tried to resolve or would be unable to solve. That's the direction I'd recommend statements go in. However, if there are already policies which might address the questions GoldenRing has raised, comments indicating them and their relevance would be useful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I've been grappling with whether the Committee should become involved in this for a while. There are two areas which need to be considered, the first is whether the Committee has a part to play in the Wikidata on Wikipedia discussion/issue, and the second is whether there are sufficient behavioural issues which are serious enough or that the community is unable to solve.

• GoldenRing's comments on his talk page (thanks for the link Dank) are interesting (and I, personally, largely agree with his analysis), however, I don't see the Committee passing a final decision which effectively bans the use of content from Wikidata because it isn't verifiable. That's a decision which needs to be made by the community and ArbCom isn't going to wade into that before the community has discussed it and a consensus has emerged. That is, a proposed decision is eminently more likely to say 'the community needs to discuss this' rather than 'under current policy the use of Wikidata info is [not permitted / questionable]'. Based on all of that I don't see a part for ArbCom to play at this stage (maybe after the 2017 RfC, if there behavioural issues or if the issue still can't be resolved).
• The second consideration is whether there is a conduct issue which the community is unable to solve. Part of that consideration is also whether anyone actually breached a policy or guideline, the lack of policy concerning the inclusion of stuff from Wikidata on enwiki makes that murky. Whether or not WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BOT have been broken is a difficult question and one which an arbitration case could address, but I'm not sure that that's something the Committee could address as a decision in that direction would likely have the effect of creating policy about Wikidata on Wikipedia. Another element in this consideration is whether the behaviour of Ymblanter and Fram, plus anyone else people can demonstrate have edited disruptively in relation to this dispute, is serious or long-term enough to warrant a case. The big thing here is evidence as some comments don't prove that a case is necessary as they lack substantiation in the form of diffs and links.

Now that I've said all of that, I'm voting to accept a case so that we can examine the behaviour of involved editors and remove (or restrict, etc) any editors who are disrupting the process. Having read and re-read the evidence and links from Iridescent and Ritchie333 (among others) I agree that there are enough behavioural issues (particularly around battleground conduct), and unsuccessful attempts by the community to resolve them, that the Committee's involvement could help. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Questions for individuals:

• @Jytdog: How would a case "establish a more clear process for pre-approving uses of Wikidata" without creating policy by fiat?
• @HJ Mitchell: Could you please provide evidence to support those aspersions?
• @Ritchie333: You say that there are "more substantial grounds for a case, but it's spread out over more users", to assist with the development of a more comprehensive list of parties, who do you think should be parties to the case? This is really @everyone to provide evidence (diffs/links & explanation) of other editors whose conduct also bears examination.

Thanks all. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog.

Thanks Ritchie333. Unfortunately by their nature (can't make findings against non-parties) arbitration cases really need to single people out. Sometimes that will develop as evidence is submitted and editors are added as parties during the case, other times (especially when the case which is opened isn't exactly the same as the request) cases start additional parties. In fact, in a case like this, it might be better that the case is opened with more parties is at the start as that is closer to what the purpose is looking like it'll be (break the back of the dispute rather than focus on two editors specifically).

Thanks for your comments Jc86035, your first paragraph is one of the big reasons I accepted the case. As I said above though, I'm interested in who the "same editors yelling" are, if you're willing to present that with some evidence it would be helpful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Accept Since the conduct issue has been raised, it should be discussed, but the main point is the effect of edits made on enWP from another Wikiproject. I think the policy is clear that we run our own project at enWP just as much as they do atWikidata, and the question of what data should be imported here is for enWP to decide. The question of whether someone making edits on another project with the knowledge and intent of their being entered on enWP againsy enWP policy can be dealt with here if they happen to be here, is involved in other situations also. I think we have previous decided that we can in extreme situation, and the question of whether this is one of them is a proper one for arb com. (and yes, I would say the same about Commons). DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Decline - MontanaBW highlights the course accurately I think. Am considering the motion below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Waiting a bit for some more comments on Newyorkbrad's motion below before making a decision on whether to accept this case. While it does seem that there may be some conduct problems here that we could address, a lot of the bigger problems here are problems we cannot solve. As a few people have already pointed out, we can't tell Wikidata how to run their shop. We also can't decide how Wikipedia should incorporate information from Wikidata—that kind of policymaking is up to the community. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Possible motion for discussion

Please note that at this time, I am posting this as a possible motion for discussion purposes. It is not yet ready for voting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Possible motion: The Arbitration Committee has considered the request for arbitration titled "Cross-Wiki issues" and decides as follows:

(A) Whether and how information from Wikidata should be used on English Wikipedia is an ongoing subject of editorial disputes, and is not specifically addressed by current English Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Aspects of these disputes may include disagreements over who should decide whether and when Wikidata content should be included, the standards to be used in making those decisions, and the proper role, if any, of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) in connection with this issue.

(B) To allow the English Wikipedia community to decide the policy issues involved, the Arbitration Committee recommends that a request for comment (RfC) be opened. This RfC should be led by a team of three experienced, uninvolved administrators who are not currently identified with any "side" or position in Wikidata-related disputes, should be reasonably publicized, and should be open for at least 30 days.

(C) While the RfC is being prepared and it is pending, editors should refrain from taking any steps that might create a fait accompli situation (i.e., systematic Wikidata-related edits on English Wikipedia that would be difficult to reverse without undue effort if the RfC were to decide that a different approach should be used).

(D) Editors should abide by high standards of user conduct, including remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, in the RfC and in all other comments on Wikidata-related issues. Editors who are knowledgeable and/or passionate about the issues are expected to participate and share their expertise and opinions, but no individual editor's comments should overwhelm or "bludgeon" the discussion. The administrators leading the RfC may excuse any editor who repeatedly or severely misbehaves on the RfC page(s) from further participation in the RfC.

(E) The request for an arbitration case is declined at this time, but may be reopened if issues suitable for ArbCom remain following the RfC, or if the RfC is not opened within 15 days after this motion passes.

Comments on possible motion by arbitrators

• I've proposed the above for consideration and comment. It is not yet ready for voting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Agree pretty much with points A, B, C, D and E - D can be addressed by structuring the RfC well with maximum scope for quantifying succinct points of view accurately, and minimum scope for walls of text, and admins prepared to collapse walls of text that detract or obfuscate the process and hinder further discussion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Iridescent: - we can remedy the wall-of-text or discussional mush at the outset by establishing firmly that these sorts of posts will be collapsed if the moderators feel they detract from or obfuscate discussion or discourage other posts. One could even put this in bold text for emphasis.... or a different colour Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the concept, suggest hosted on (for example) a subpage of WP:ACN with non-threaded discussion and clerking. Adjudicated by three unaligned editors, need not be admins. Risks setting a precedent for other controversial RfCs - but we're not otherwise going to get to a coherent position on this topic, so it's worth a try. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• I'd rather just have the case and try to solve the conduct issues as I believe that it would better position the RfC in the best way to succeed.

  If we are to go down this path though, I agree with A, B, C and E. However, I don't agree with the wording of D. "Expecting" that people will participate is maybe pushing a bit too hard on a voluntary project. Also, if we're going go down the RfC path, where going to need to moderators some serious backing to deal with the conduct issues we'll be pushing onto them. My preferred way to do this would be to authorise the moderators to either use discretionary sanctions or specify a more limited version. That limited version could look something along the lines of moderators being authorised to issue section (specific parts of the RfC), page (whole RfC) or topic (Wikidata on Wikipedia in general) bans (and they can block to enforce those), plus they have full authority over the RfC itself, which includes the ability to unilaterally close (determine consensus), hat or remove comments, discussions and threads. Decisions they make would be covered by the standard enforcement and appeal provisions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments on possible motion by other editors

• I really like this because it seeks to avoid the undesirable situation where a policy decision is made by getting the other side topic banned or blocked rather than actually refuting the arguments. It really happens far too often that a policy or content dispute gets couched as behavioral. I hope this motion is successful and leads to more resolutions like this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• I like this in a way, but I also think that like whatever the bot policy RfC(s) that have been at the root of some of the recent ArbCom cases, what you're going to get is the overwhelming majority of the editing community with their eyes glazed over at this RfC because most of us simply don't care or know enough to care about Wikidata, and its going to turn into a complete mess with the different sides of the dispute making their points and arguing to a stalemate while the rest of the community ignores it because its both 1) extremely boring to most people 2) difficult to comprehend whether it is the end-of-Wikipedia-as-we-know-it® in a good or a bad way and 3) full of editors who have very strong opinions on it so it makes neutral editors simply not want to be involved.
  Because of these factors, I think sorting out some of the broader issues within the framework of existing policy and looking at how it affects behavioral issues on the English Wikipedia are better examined in an ArbCom case, because the community has failed to effectively deal with this itself, and the community is unlikely to be able to deal with it through an RfC. A structured format such as a full case would be beneficial here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Just to comment: Iridescent said what I was thinking better than I ever could, and I fully endorse that view. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Callanecc: I think your conditions are right as to what would be needed for the RfC to be successful, at the same time, as you mentioned a case would be a more straightforward way of addressing the conduct issues. It also has the benefit of already being structured and everyone knowing the rules. The main reason for my comment though is this: any moderators that would be appointed would be acting on authority delegated from ArbCom and would be unelected by the community (and even if we had an "RfC to advise on the appointment of moderators" it would likely suffer from the same problems I noted above about a general RfC). While the committee may be criticized (often times unfairly in my opinion), it is still the single body on the English Wikipedia that is elected by over 1000 members of the community and thus has been entrusted with the ability to run a structured dispute resolution case by the community as a whole. This is in many ways a moral authority that no group of moderators could possibly have, and helps to ensure the outcome is seen as legitimate, which is an issue we have many times with RfC closes, even when done by a closing panel. While I agree with you 100% on the steps that need to be taken if an RfC is to be done, for all of the reasons I mentioned above, I think a case is vastly preferable. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• Sort of. I support the principle of forcing all those involved in this discussion to lay their cards on the table and come to an enforced consensus rather than fighting an ongoing guerrilla war across project space in the hope of getting each other blocked. Per my comments above, I don't believe a traditional RFC is the way to go; a discussion will need to be moderated to prevent it degenerating into two camps posting walls of text at each other (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop for an idea of what an unmoderated RFC would look like), and it ought to be on the understanding that "whatever is agreed here will be enforced" to prevent endless appeals and wikilawyering. Whether or not it's done as a formal case or as an arbcom-controlled Royal Commission Under Warrant From King Jimmy in the shape of a glorified workshop doesn't really matter, but it needs someone with the authority to issue arbitrary "shut up and get to the point" warnings, and IMO only either the arbs themselves or a group of neutrals explicitly given dictatorial powers over how the RFC is conducted would have a hope of preventing it becoming a back-and-forth between the usual suspects. ‑ Iridescent 18:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber Which is precisely why it needs to be a formal process under either Arbcom's or the WMF's aegis, and the WMF won't touch it. Unless someone is explicitly mandated to hat or remove anything they feel needs hatting or removing, to say "shut up, you've said enough" and if necessary to impose word limits, any collapsing will just either be reverted or followed by an endless stream of "and another thing…"s. It's not ABF on my part to presume this, when we know what a discussion between just a small subset of the people likely to participate in any RFC looks like if it's allowed to run unmoderated (and note that you're just seeing the current threads there, there are ten archives as well). ‑ Iridescent 23:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• If this happens, then it might be worth noting that a draft of an RfC already exists at Wikipedia:Wikidata/2017 RfC draft - this was started by me a month ago, and it's still iterating towards something usable (it's far from ready yet). TBH, I quite like the idea of this being taken over by a team of three uninvolved admins. However, I'd suggest saying a month (at least) rather than 15 days to prepare it, given the complexities here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• I am not a fan -- (as I said, ENWP is institutionally ignorant of Wikidata) we simply do not have an agreed upon factual understanding, eg. - what wikidata is, what happens with it and why, what has happened on ENWP as a result, etc. -- if we had an agreed upon consensus on the underlying facts (or at least an assembled agreed body of evidence) - we might be able to then go forward, profitably. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• I concur with Iridescent's comments Dax Bane 20:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• I am afraid that most editors are too ignorant to understand the effects of transcluding information from outside, and the extend of that. All of that is 'case-by-case', but the case-by-case results in fait accomply situations already that are hard to return back on (it likely will need massive bot runs to keep/get data, followed by massive cleanup). My expectation is that an RfC will not result in a consensus situation (hard push from hardliners on each side, with the general public considering 'mwaagh, it is fine, I don't see problems'), and that we will return here (not that that will resolve anything, ArbCom will only decide on editor conduct). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• It's worth a shot. The RfC which is being drafted is not comprehensive, but some ideas from it may be used of course (I may perhaps draft an RfC in my userspace to give an idea of what I would consider the necessary questions). I would ask ArbCom, if this motion would get accepted, to make an exception for a) infobox world heritage site, where a RfC has just concluded that it should no longer use Wikidata and where we are working on changing the articles to non-Wikidata infoboxes: stopping this until the end of the proposed RfC seems unproductive; and b) the discussion which is ongoing about the use of Wikidata descriptions in mobile, for which an RfC was had in March(?) but where the definitive solution is now being discussed with the WMF. Halting that discussion, which has already been painfully slow, for another two months or so would be a pity. Apart from those, I guess there is no need for new fragmentary discussions when a general RfC is happening. Fram (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Nathan B. Forrest

Initiated by Azarbarzin (talk) at 21:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Azarbarzin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Smmurphy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Smmurphy
• Joefromrandb
• A D Monroe

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I added a reference to Nathan Bedford Forrest regarding the 47 black confederate soldiers who served under his command during the civil war. The first deletion by user user:A D Monroe III left the following reasoning

reason to include lengthy quotes from the primary source. Secondary sources are much preferred.

I then abbreviated my following edit with secondary sources as evident by the history page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nathan_Bedford_Forrest&action=history

It was also deleted by another user user:Joefromrandb, with this reasoning: Multiple editors have deemed this lengthy and undue

Finally, I just added the picture of Louis Napoleon Nelson by citing the articles in & -- This one was deleted by user:Smmurphy without any reason stated.

I proceeded to his talk page and left a cordial message inquiring for his reason(s). To my surprise, he/she had deleted my question/request also. The section I added my citations was pertaining the kkk, and the inclusion of black confederates in Forrest's regiment/brigade seemed reasonably relevant to me, as attested by many of his recent biographers. Azarbarzin (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Statement by Smmurphy

I'm not sure exactly which issues this request refers to, my behavior or the content of the page about Forrest. But to clarify things for anyone reading this, here is the diff of me removing a new comment by User:Azarbarzin from an archive of my talk page[16]. Here is the diff of me pasting that comment to my talk page[17]. Here is a diff of me replying at my talk page, with a failed attempt to ping user[18]. Here is the diff where I fix the ping (notice that it is after I was notified of this request)[19]. And here is the location of the discussion of the edit to Forrest's page Talk:Nathan Bedford Forrest#Image of Louis Napoleon Nelson (diff - [20]). Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Mendaliv

This appears to be a case about a one-off content dispute where the parties have not really had any discussion at the article talk page. Even if there is a behavioral component, it does not appear that any lesser dispute resolution has been tried beyond a user talk message. Some lesser dispute resolution is necessary in this case. This case lies outside the Committee's jurisdiction. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by TomStar81

I've no stake in this case whatsoever, but as a procedural observation I would note that Azarbarzin has not notified Smmurphy of the ARBCOM opening, as is evidenced both by the talk page and by the absence of the link in the outline showing that all parties have been notified. That alone suggests that this case should be declined since proper procedure for filing was not adhered to. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@TomStar81: I'm illegally posting this in your section, due solely to laziness: [21]. If you want to just delete this, I'm fine with my comment being deleted too.--Floquenbeam (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

My Phd. was in procrastination (gotta a b.s. in bs, too). As long as it gets there I don't suppose anyone really cares :) TomStar81 (Talk) 20:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Nathan B. Forrest: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/6/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• decline as premature - we have other venues for this WP:RFC being one of them Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• No. We are the last resort, not the first or even second. Drmies (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Decline. No sign that other dispute resolution has been attempted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Decline - content dispute, which is best resolved on the article talkpage (as is now occurring). -- Euryalus (talk) 05:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• Decline as this dispute should go through other dispute resolution options before arbitration, which is often a lengthy and contentious process. This doesn't imply your dispute is unimportant, but merely that arbitration isn't the best way to resolve it. I suggest you look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, where there are several kinds of dispute resolution that could be useful. For the content side of the dispute, I would suggest opening a discussion on the Dispute resolution noticeboard, and if there are further problems you could try request for comment on content. For user conduct concern, I'd first suggest trying to work together to solve the issue. If conduct issues persist, presenting the incident for outside opinions on the administrators' noticeboard for incidents. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• ‘’’Decline’’’ Doug Weller talk 20:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)