Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee
Use this page to discuss information on the page (and subpages) attached to this one. This includes limited discussion of the Arbitration Committee itself, as a body. Some things belong on other pages:
|
This Arbitration Committee has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Protection of AfD discussions due to contentious topic restriction[edit]
I have lately seen a number of AfDs being ECPed with summaries relating to arbitration enforcement, especially WP:RUSUKR and WP:ARBPIA4. I am wondering why such discussions get protected, unlike most talk pages of contentious topics? Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 17:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- @ToadetteEdit. WP:ARBECR gives the answer, I think. When an EC restriction is in place in a topic area, it applies to the whole topic area with the exception that editors who are not extended confirmed may use the "Talk" namespace to make edit requests. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Petition to amend ARBPOL to add options for U4C[edit]
Please see WP:Village pump (policy)#Petition to amend ARBPOL to add options for U4C. Thank you. signed, SpringProof talk 04:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Kingdom of Aksum and Ethiopian Greek page[edit]
Both contain inaccurate information and poor sources. I am banned from ediiing which is clearly an attempt to silence me. Spinning history or distorting it should not be allowed. Habesha212 (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Complaint #1: User:Nishidani conduct[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user has consistently demonstrated behaviors that appear to be in violation of Wikimedia’s Universal code of conduct and general policy, especially in the form of "Psychological manipulation" and "Hate-speech”. Since at least 2018, the editor has shown a significant bias in topics related to Israel/Palestine and has expressed extreme views on Jews, Jewish heritage, and explicitly, Jewish genetics. In their editing, the user states seriously contested assertions as facts, uses judgmental language, and gives undue weight to a particular view- in this case, the anti-Israel view. Furthermore it seems that this user has also violated some of Wikipedia’s’ “five pillars”, requiring editors on Wikipedia to treat each other with respect and civility (WP:5P4) and editing from a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). It seems that these non-neutral and sometimes offensive edits rise to harassment, therefore violating art. 3.1 of the UCOC.
Inflammatory commentary on Jews/Judaism
- The user recently used disrespectful, threatening language that borders anti-semitism. goody. I can't wait to peeve on the discussion there when it gets to his beliefs about the genetic superiority of his own ethnic group. Dumb goyim beware.”
The term "dumb goyim" can be used to perpetuate harmful stereotypes and contribute to a narrative of a Jewish superiority over non-Jews, a theme found in antisemitic rhetoric, where Jews are sometimes falsely accused of harboring a sense of superiority towards non-Jews. This comment is uncivil and violates Art. 2.2 of Wikimedia’s UCOC. Moreover, the threatening nature of this comment’, it’s attempted “trolling”, and insulting antisemitic reference, rise to Harassment, violating article 3.1 of the UCOC. Although a complaint filed against him for using this phrase was closed with warning, with one admin stating that “if it happened again, I would not take so charitable a view”. But this is not the first time that User:Nishidani has used this phrase. - The user has also stated that the article Jews is "untouchable in its POV sacrality". They also attributed the survival of Jews to what they termed "diasporic promiscuity," a phrase that reflects a deeply biased and offensive perspective on Jewish history and genetics.
- More on genetics, the user has written that the Middle Eastern component among Ashkenazi Jews is “estimated to range from 3% upwards”, a distortion of common scholarship that half of Ashkenazi ancestry is Middle Eastern, promoting a fringe outlier instead.
- According to the user, “As any rabbi competent in modern historiography will confirm, Jews have their origin in Judaism, not in an ethnos”. However, Jews have always seen themselves as a people with shared ancestry.
- The above raises serious concerns regarding genetics-related articles such as Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism, originally “Zionism, race and genetics”, where Nishidani has 62% authorship. The article has an essayistic tone and sparked controversy due to its synthesis of three topics that are not commonly analyzed together in existing literature.
Extreme bias against Israel, including analogies to Nazism and Fascism
- User:Nishidani has stated that "The word 'settlement' is an Israeli/US euphemism born of the necessity to camouflage or underplay the fact that the old ideology is still kicking (out Palestinians) for lebensraum". This comment uses the term ‘lebensraum’ which is primarily associated with German nationalism and later with the territorial expansion policies of Nazi Germany.
- The user labelled Zionism "a Jewish heresy" that may generate antisemitism. He also wrote that Zionism has a "historical mission to utterly disintegrate the indigenous population of Palestine", wondering "to what degree Israel will succeed in convincing the diaspora that all this Germanic thoroughness in wiping away an authentically semitic people is for the good of the Jewish people."
- The user wrote blatantly inflammatory comments here, for example calling Israeli media outlets: “militant mouth organ-grinders or trumpeting blowhards for a constituency of religio-fascist landgrabbers”. Israel Hayom is Israel’s most widely distributed newspaper, while Arutz 7 has the third-largest weekend circulation in the country.
- The user labelled an NYT article on sexual violence during the October 7 attacks "pseudo-journalism".
- Nishidani edited large portions and added much content to an article titled: Animal stereotypes of Palestinians in Israeli discourse, while violating one of the main “pillars” of Wikipedia; NPOV and at times also being disrespectful and uncivil when referring to Israelis and Jews. This was after he wrote on his talk page that he will "make a wiki page on the history of this variety of subhuman stereotype as it has developed in Israeli discourse on Palestinians". In his first edit he writes that both Palestinians and Israelis tend to refer to each other by the usage of animal stereotypes, yet the title of the article and the rest of it, solely accuses the Israeli-Jewish side of this mutual practice.
- Palestinian displacement in East Jerusalem, created by Selfstudier, and Nishidani (who joined 40 minutes after the article was created), presents contested claims in WP:VOICE. Source [a], for example, is from al-Haq, a Palestinian group. Stating opinions and contested assertions as facts, rises to violation of Wikimedia’s policy of writing from a NPOV. Similar concerns arise with the Palestinian enclaves article, which seems to endorse a biased perspective and presents one-sided viewpoints in violation of WP:NPOV guidelines. The first paragraph immediately draws comparisons to the Apartheid, and then cherry-picks a quote from Amira Hass, a journalist known in Israel for her radical left opinions. Despite these issues, it is classified as a good article. Nishidani, a significant contributor to this article, has strongly resisted efforts to address concerns regarding its bias, as can be seen here, also adding personal attacks, violating art. 2.1 and 2.2 of UCOC.
Previous resolutions
- In the past, User:Nishidani has been reported and warned multiple times for using unconstructive or inflammatory language. They were also blocked several times, but those were either short-termed or quickly lifted. Many of their inflammatory personal attacks were regarded as "in-jokes". Their user conduct has since persisted.
- The user presents themselves, and another user he frequently collaborated with, User:Nableezy, as I/P specialists. When users approach them asking to pay attention for their conduct, they responded aggressively. In one example, they told one user to "stop shitstirring", to refrain from editing certain pages, and blaming them for "appalling ignorance", violating art. 2.1 and 2.2 of wikimedia's UCOC.
- On August 29th 2018 at 16:41, administrator named Sandstein wrote: “I will consider imposing a block or an indefinite topic ban, with or without any prior discussion, in the event of continued battleground-like conduct by Nishidani in this topic area”. A few hours later, at 20:12 the user stated he retired. Despite that, and putting a retired tag on his page, he is clearly still active.
- On April 14th 2019, Nishidani was "banned for a week...they are misusing Wikipedia as a battleground and casting aspersions on others“.
- On August 19th 2023, Tamzin page-banned Nishidani from editing “Zionism, race, and genetics” due to his conduct. A day before he received a logged warning for fostering a “battleground environment” on the same page. In response, Nishidani said he would leave Wikipedia permanently. Two days later, former admin Tamzin lifted his page ban after receiving comments from other admins urging Tamzin to withdraw the ban.
The actions described raise significant concerns due to ongoing violations of Wikimedia's Code of Conduct and Wikipedia's fundamental policies. User:Nishidani's conduct negatively impacts Wikipedia's reliability and the editing environment, and contributes to the distortion of Jewish and Israeli related topics on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mschwartz1 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Mschwartz1 this is the wrong place. You need to file your request at WP:ARC and use the included template. Additionally, if you wish to exceed 500 words please get permission before posting. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
ECR RFARs from non-editors[edit]
In the future, when arbcom receives a request from someone who is not an editor to hear a case in an WP:ECR topic area, I think the best way to handle it would be:
- Have the person draft an WP:RFAR in a format suitable to be posted on-wiki (meeting the word limit and other requirements), and then email it to the committee
- The committee reads the request and makes some initial determination about whether it's "frivolous" ("has no chance of being accepted") or not (or whatever standard arbcom wants to use)
- If it's frivolous (or below whatever standard), arbcom tells the person they're declining it, and then makes some kind of record somewhere on wiki that they declined the case request from a non-editor
- If it's not frivolous, arbcom can post the request on-wiki (or direct the person to post it), and arbcom can grant the person an exception to WP:ECR for the purpose of participating in the case request and any subsequent arbitration proceeding. (Which doesn't require actually giving them WP:XC, just an exception to WP:ECR.)
Levivich (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- "In the future" assumes that we have not already done something similar in the past. Primefac (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- You did something different this time. Levivich (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- True, we did not receive a fully-formed wikitext-formatted case request. Primefac (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to be wikitext-formatted. The key difference is that arbcom's decision to allow the case request to proceed would be based on the case request itself (and not on some digest, preview, or other statement by the requestor), and the announcement of arbcom's decision to allow the case request to proceed would happen at the same time as the case request is posted publicly (and not beforehand). (The other key difference is making a policy exception to WP:ECR rather than actually putting the requestor's account in the WP:XC user group.) This is not meant as a criticism of what arbcom did, but a suggestion for how to do it better. Better for arbcom and better for the community. Levivich (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- That is fair, and I do agree that some procedural changes should be considered to deal with this kind of situation. Primefac (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I ec'd and was about to add: this way, arbcom is looking at one document (the case request itself) when it makes its decision, that same exact document is shared with the community, and it's shared at the same time as the community learns of arbcom's decision to allow the case request to be posted. So when the community wonders why arbcom made the decision it did, it can just read the very same document that arbcom read when it made its decision. This method answers questions without those questions having to be asked, it doesn't leave a gap between announcement and case request posting during which time people will wonder and speculate, and it eliminates the possibility of any surprises for arbs if the case request happens to be different than the request-for-permission-to-post-a-case-request that they reviewed privately. So that's what I meant when I said better both for arbcom and for the community. Levivich (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Levivich see what you're suggesting is, for me, prejudging the case. The only decision I had to make at the time I made it is: "should this be public or private or not at all". It was not frivolous so I took not at all off the table and it involved no private evidence so I thought it should be public. Beyond that I judged no facts. Because I philosophically agree with that concept which you have so passionately inveighed upon elsewhere. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's not pre-judging a case because it's judging a request-for-standing. In other words, you're not judging the ultimate issue (should XYZ be sanctioned or whatever), you're judging a threshold issue: should this person who doesn't have standing be granted standing so they can make this case request. An arb can decide that narrow, preliminary, threshold issue, without pre-judging the next threshold issue (should the case request be accepted) or the ultimate issue (should XYZ be sanctioned or whatever). For exactly the same reason, deciding to accept a case request -- any case request -- is not pre-judging the case but just judging the case request, and arbs can and in every case do judge the case request without pre-judging the ultimate issue (as evidenced by the many arbs over the years who vote to accept a case but then vote against some or sometimes even all sanctions). Levivich (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- That is fair, and I do agree that some procedural changes should be considered to deal with this kind of situation. Primefac (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to be wikitext-formatted. The key difference is that arbcom's decision to allow the case request to proceed would be based on the case request itself (and not on some digest, preview, or other statement by the requestor), and the announcement of arbcom's decision to allow the case request to proceed would happen at the same time as the case request is posted publicly (and not beforehand). (The other key difference is making a policy exception to WP:ECR rather than actually putting the requestor's account in the WP:XC user group.) This is not meant as a criticism of what arbcom did, but a suggestion for how to do it better. Better for arbcom and better for the community. Levivich (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- True, we did not receive a fully-formed wikitext-formatted case request. Primefac (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- You did something different this time. Levivich (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)