Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: DeltaQuad (Talk) & Cameron11598 (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Premeditated Chaos (Talk) & KrakatoaKatie (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Curly Turkey retired (!?)[edit]

ArbCom, you have to stop doing this.

Encouraging POV-pushing SPAs (etc.) to harass pillars of the community like Curly Turkey into going overboard (which I'm not even seeing evidence he did in this case) is exactly what I was concerned about when I asked about half of you about WP:CPUSH last winter, and most of you seemed to recognize that it was a problem. Yeah, this time you don't seem to be issuing any needless permabans, which is why I intend to try to convince CT not to take this drastic step, but you have to understand that it is not healthy for the project for you to Keep. Doing. This.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's absolutely a loss if Curly Turkey decides to stop editing over the result of this situation. However, I'll say the same thing to you that I've been saying on the talk page for the proposed decision: who and where are the POV-pushing SPAs in this situation? There was zero evidence presented at any stage of any significant participation by brand-new/SPA-type accounts. I asked again on the PD talk page and got the same amount of nothing in response. The only editor who comes close was PavelShk, who gave the very reasonable explanation that he joined Wikipedia because he was interested in the topic. In the absence of any actual evidence of multiple SPA/brand-new accounts behaving badly at the article, the spectre of POV-pushing SPA accounts is just that - a ghost story. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Premeditated Chaos: PavelShk is an SPA: that much is self-evident from their contribs, and cannot be disputed. In spite of this fact, ArbCom has apparently decided that this diff (currently marked as 33 in the proposed decision) qualifies as CT disruptively "casting aspersions". (This is honestly quite similar to the time I was accused of issuing "threats of on-wiki retaliation" when the diff cited actually showed me making a peace offering by saying that if the other party stopped doing X then I would not do Y, when Y was something that our content policies very much favoured doing to begin with, and I had already stated numerous times I intended to do for that reason.[1]) I am honestly shocked to see you actually claim that there is "no evidence" of single-purpose accounts when this evidence was staring you right in the face and you also picked up a diff of someone simply stating that fact and referred to it as "engag[ing] in BATTLEGROUND behavior, accus[ing] multiple editors of bad faith, and cast[ing] aspersions on editors who have disagreed".
As for POV-pushing, the diffs of him "casting aspersions" appear to amount mostly to his accusing other editors of pushing one or another POV; by punishing him for this comment, and indeed by insinuating that this qualifies as "casting aspersions" rather than simply stating facts, ArbCom has essentially stated that he was wrong to accuse them of POV-pushing -- without looking too deeply at the content of the dispute (and, per their mandate, ArbCom appears to have done the same) I'd say it's inappropriate to assume one way or the other regarding whether he is right or wrong.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC) (edited 07:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC) )[reply]
(edit conflict) You've gone from POV-pushing SPAs (plural) to an SPA (singular). Where are the rest of them? In any case, making accusations without proof is the textbook definition of casting aspersions, and has a long history of being frowned upon by both the community and ArbCom. Accusing people of being SPAs or being POV-pushers without sufficient evidence falls under that. Having what one thinks is a good reason ("I'm right and they're wrong") doesn't absolve one of having behaved inappropriately in the first place. (Side note: no need for a ping, I have this watchlisted). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've gone from POV-pushing SPAs (plural) to an SPA (singular). Actually, it was you who did that. I said "ArbCom, you need to stop doing this -- it's happened too many times", and in your response you asked for evidence of POV-pushing SPAs (plural) in this case, when I never said there were POV-pushing SPAs (plural) in this case. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Second line of your first post: "Encouraging POV-pushing SPAs". Did you mean something else by that? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Or rather, I meant to say exactly what I and I believe most native English speakers would interpret it as saying, but you apparently did not. ArbCom has a history of encouraging POV-pushing SPAs. This is just one example. I was saying you need to stop doing this in general. The full sentence you quote from said "pillars of the community", of which in this particular case there was only one. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note here that ArbCom's decision in this matter is already being cited as though it were a binding decision on the underlying content dispute, with CT's arguments in the RFC being given less weight because ArbCom is considering TBANning him.[2] This. Just. Keeps. Happening. ArbCom needs to either start including in its proposed/final decisions the wording "We are not making a judgment on article content; this is generally outside of ArbCom's purview, except in extreme cases", or stop banning editors who are subject to ongoing content disputes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@J. Johnson: Umm ... is this a response to what I was writing above? ArbCom doesn't have a problem with encouraging "uncivil POV-pushers" by clumsily litigating content disputes while claiming only to focus on conduct, so what you are saying is pretty irrelevant. In 2015 they banned me from "Japanese culture" articles as a result of a dispute over the content of the Korean influence on Japanese culture -- this served to embolden the "civil" POV-pushers and ultimately led to a huge fustercluck on ANI about six months later. (They also recognized that I was getting hounded, but did nothing to protect me from said hounding -- that was also something that needed to be resolved on ANI later.) This incident shows they have not learned anything -- none of the Arbitrators have yet commented on Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair to tell people that their mandate is not to litigate content, and that to take this decision as "CT's opponents are right; you should do what they want" is out of line. The only one I'm willing to give a pass for this is Katie, since before she became an Arb she was actually heavily involved in cleaning up the messes ArbCom created at ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, given that one of the "aspersions" CT is being charged with is accusing other editors of pushing a POV, I'd be careful casting the same aspersions against him, especially doing so here, now, since it's essentially nothing but petty grave-dancing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see that Arbcom has in anyway "litgate[d] content" here You appear to have completely misunderstood my point. "content" has not been an issue here, only the edit-warring and such about content Yeah -- so why is this being used as a justification to push a particular content point? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I came here not resolve the SNC-Lavalin affair content dispute (which I don't know a whole lot about and which I was aware of some time ago but didn't touch for that reason) but rather the issues of (a) ArbCom repeatedly litigating content disputes by banning one side of a dispute and then not lifting a finger when the other side, after the banned side is gone, starts trying to claim that "ArbCom said we were right" (which has already happened here) which goes beyond their normal mandate, and (b) ArbCom driving good-faith content creators off the site because they had been repeatedly needled and prodded by so-called "civil POV-pushers" and ArbCom refused to recognize this issue. The former (the SNC-Lavalin affair content dispute) is properly addressed on the talk page, but I really don't want to spearhead an "ArbCom didn't say you were right" campaign on an article I have no interest in -- yeah, CT essentially did that for me in the past, but he had already been involved in editing the article beforehand, because it was on a topic he was interested in and knowledgeable of (certainly more knowledgeable than most parties to the ArbCom case), which is not the case here. The latter (both a and b) really, really needs to be addressed, but I suspect even taking it to the appropriate forum (probably Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard) will not make a difference in the long run -- ArbCom reform and clearer questioning (and demanding clearer answers) during elections are what is really needed there. So basically what I'm saying is I'd be happy not to do anything else with this beyond begging CT not to leave (he's only subject to one actual editing restriction, which will expire in six months, which is already less time than I've been in this "what's even the point of editing?" rut that ArbCom and a few editors who don't like me pushed me into). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re POV-pushing[edit]

"POV-pushing" has been the central theme of this case, even though, strictly speaking, that is a content issue, which should be resolved on an article's Talk page, while WP:Arbitration is for "conduct disputes (i.e., not content disputes)". The nature of the content, as fairly representing a neutral point of view, or not, keeps arising because that is the implicit justification for Curly Turkey's conduct: "right" content excuses bad conduct. E.g.: his pushing of the ((cite check)) template mulitple times was (by his pov) not edit-warring because he was right, while even single removals by the rest of us constituted edit-warring because we were "wrong". CT did not explicitly state this (perhaps he thought it was obvious?), but it is the simplest, most straight-forward basis I see for what he and others have argued.

The fallacy of this argument is the assumption of what is the "right", or neutral, POV. To determine NPOV we need discussion, and particularly, civil, even collegial, discussion. CT's imminent TBAN is not for what he was pushing, but his incivility in how he was pushing it. As far as I can see the proposed decision has nothing to say about the underlying content; it is entirely about conduct.

For all that some editors are complaining of civil POV-pushing, perhaps it should be made clear that an editor's assumption of NPOV does not justify uncivil POV-pushing, nor supersede the requirement of WP:Civility. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While your reference to POV-pushing prompted me to respond, the point has been invoked by others, and (as I hope to have made clear) is a central theme of this affair, although I have yet to see that clearly, explicitly stated.
The Findings of Fact certainly show that "CT's opponents are right" regarding certain complaints re conduct, but you err in stating that the opponents "should do what they want". I do not see that Arbcom has in anyway "litgate[d] content" here (though that point is perhaps best addressed by an Arbcom); "content" has not been an issue here, only the edit-warring and such about content. That various editors (including yourself) keep harking back to "POV-pushing", which is a matter of content, begs the question of why some "pushing" – and particularly, some edit-warring – is not taken as objectionable, while pushing back is objected. I submit that such distinctions arise from considerations of content, and amount to an implicit claim that "right" content excuses bad conduct.
You might note that the objection to CT's "aspersions" are not so much that he accused others of misbehavior, but that he did so without reasonable cause or basis. You should particularly note that my comments are in no way an accusation or attempt to besmirch CT's reputation, but to show a possible rationale for his conduct which he seems unable to formulate. And which seems implicit in other editors' thinking. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: I think we have prospects of a useful discussion, but (seeing as how this case is now closed) should we continue here? Or somewhere else? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't abandoned this (I think there is an issue warranting discussion), just been too busy of late to get here. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More