This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerk: Lankiveil (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Dougweller (Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
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.
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.
Looking over the history of the disputes about this article, I can see that there have been article talk page discussions that have gone around and around since late 2013 without resolution. There is antagonism between some editors, but they have in general been dancing around the edges of what is clearly blockable, avoiding actual WP:3RR and avoiding clear personal attacks, but also avoiding collaboration. I agree with the comment that neither lightweight mediation at the dispute resolution noticeboard or formal mediation are likely to work, and see no point in sending the parties off for failed mediation. At the same time, the conduct issues in this case fall just barely short of the usual threshold for the ArbCom to accept a full case; there haven't been enough WP:ANI threads for the usual acceptance of arbitration. However, the new arbitration committee has introduced a useful approach to persistent conduct disputes that do not rise to the previous threshold for a formal arbitration case: a procedural accept in order to impose arbitration discretionary sanctions. I suggest that the ArbCom implement do a procedural accept in order to impose discretionary sanctions on the topic area of Homosexuality and Catholicism. Any further disruptive editing, such as reversion without discussion, can be dealt with by Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
There do appear to be reasonable issues pertaining to user conduct and/or maybe appropriate use of sources involved here, and the issue of homosexuality and Catholicism, and to a greater or lesser extent other churches as well, is a rather thorny one which has led to multiple rather hot "discussions." Of course, given its size, I think the Roman Catholic church is probably the easiest target, with the most sources of all sorts dealing with it. It makes sense to me to take this case. There do seem to be some issues relating to conduct and interpretation of guidelines involved, and it might also be useful to allow for imposition of discretionary sanctions by motion in the broad topic area as well for almost certain further contentious discussions in this topic area. John Carter (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I was brought into this dispute last August via a posting at RS/N. The exact same content dispute has been going on since then, with the page being fully protected multiple times.
I am not sure that behavior at this point has risen to the level that requires the Arbs to directly intercede, but there is definitely a problem that is endemic to the topic. I am somewhat surprised that there aren't already DS applied to this topic considering how political/controversial the nexus is, and suggest that applying DS via motion may cut the Gordian Knot.
There are a few issues I see at the article. (primarily content disputes, compounded by their methods of dispute resolution
1) In my opinion the main disputants in the topic Roscelese and Esogluou are both talking past each other, trying to adamantly convince the other one of their position, and not really listening to each other's statements and trying to compromise. This extends to ignoring the multiple other uninvolved editors who have come in, and given fairly consistent opinions, which may rise to the level of WP:DE via WP:IDHT. As with many content disputes they are so deeply involved with each other, and every nuance that the outside opinions get washed out by the excessively lengthy posts between the two of them. Esoglou does appear to be reading the comments of uninvoled, and taking them into account, but most of that accounting involves them saying "See, X agrees with me". (For the most part they are right, but it could be better handled).
2) (mainly) Roscelese has a consistent problem with trying to get the Church's statement to say something the source does not say. The core issue is trying to speak in absolutes (never, always, etc) when the document itself is very wishy-washy (may, sometimes, some cases, etc). This dispute about the literally the exact same sentence in the article has been going on for months. Its coming to the point that either there is willfull misrepresentation of the source to spin the article, or a WP:CIR reading comprehension issue.
3) The Edit warring and pointed tagging/editing of the article (From at least July '14 until now).
Thryduulf The narrow DS on catholicism and homosexuality at a minimum seems appropriate (and would also cover another recent flareup at Salvatore_J._Cordileone#Political_activity). The broader "religion" DS might also be beneficial as it would cover other controversial areas like Westboro Baptist Church. IBan could be beneficial in general, but seems problematic as related to this ongoing dispute - would they both be allowed to participate, but just not comment to/about each other?. I don't see behavior by either party as rising to the level of topic ban worthy, but remain open to being persuaded by diffs. I would think bans would require a full case to be evaluated rather than just motions though. Roscelese has posted some diffs on her talk in her conversation with George Ho and Mop which do show some problematic behavior by Esogluou I was not aware of, but I think those fall more into the iban realm than the topic ban realm. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
George Ho Based on the filename, I am guessing that the photo was either this one, or one from this series. (Note the description "photomodel Dani" which matches the other filename. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rope_bondage-020914-2896-24.jpg That does seem wildly inappropriate, and perhaps evidence towards the IBan, but I am not sure of its relevance to the topic (and hence a topic ban etc) unless the prior chain of conversation can be followed for context. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Dominus Vobisdu In general, we prefer secondaries to primaries. I agree absolutely. But in this case what we are trying to describe is "What is the official statement from the Vatican about X". If there are discrepancies between the official statement and secondaries about what the official statement is, the official statement should win. (We have a similar policy about when there are discrepancies between the text of a law and secondary descriptions of the law, but I can't find the link at the moment) see self-reply below
This is a specific letter, signed by a specific small group of people and therefore covered by WP:BLPGROUP. (and the current pope is singled out as a signatory/presenter) While it is certainly valid (even mandatory) to include analysis or responses from notable secondary sources, for the specific of "What did the letter say" we should not rely on "the opposition (Eg, LGBT groups who are protesting the Church's position)" to accurately repeat things and not spin it. R's summary versions of the letter have repeatedly failed to accurately describe the contents of the letter.
I disagree with people that say that Esoglou is here for Catholic apologetics. There is a difference between preaching what the Church says and making sure that the article reflects the official Church viewpoint. If an article is about Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism it should accurately reflect what the official view of the Roman Catholic church is. Other viewpoints are appropriate but if the Church officially says X and some RS says Y and another says Z, all can be presented but it doesn't negate the fact that the Church actually says X. In a parallel, almost every time Pope Francis speaks you have 5 newspapers come out and say he said one thing, 5 more newspapers come out and say he said a different thing and then usually an official Vatican newspaper comes out and says the correct interpretation of what he says is something else. In most cases in here Esoglou asks that the equivalent of the official Vatican newspaper source be used and Roscelese would ask that whichever source more closely resembles what she wants the article to say be used. I have had arguments with Roscelese in the past on other articles related to this where she will do things like claim that NO Catholic newspaper article can be used as a reliable source, but will then accept a Catholic news source if it backs up what she is trying to say. There is also a tendency she has that if you even allude to the fact that she may be biased she will do everything in her power to have you banned, but then she (and other editors) have no problem making remarks about Esoglou being biased. I think the number of people that have interaction bans with her is a very telling thing about her editing style. She is very dismissive of anyone that disagrees with her. Any time people bring up the fact that she should discuss things with Esoglou she brings up things that happened two years ago between them (which Esoglou has apologized for as an attempt at humor that was misunderstood) instead of addressing things that are happening now. This is definitely not a one-sided problem.Marauder40 (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I saw the picture, it was not a naked picture. According to Esoglou he meant the picture as an attempt at humor, to signify that HE felt tied up. The same picture has been used in another article at around the same time and was being commented on in multiple places on WP at the time. It wasn't like he searched the archives just to find it. Was it inappropriate, probably. Was it something that should apply now two years later, not really. Marauder40 (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I semi-protected the article on August 17, 2014, for a month. According to the log (I have no independent memory of this), it was because of a an edit warring/content dispute and "probable sock puppetry - IP hopping". I have nothing else to add unless an arbitrator has a question for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
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.
Initiated by Callanecc at 16:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Following an AE request (I'll add a permalink when it's closed) could the Committee please clarify what the second part of dot point one in Roscelese's restriction ("and is required to discuss any content [emphasis added] reversions on the page's talk page") applies to.
My suggestion would be that the bit in brackets for the first clause could be made to apply to the second clause as well, or if WP:BANEX could be applied to the whole dot point?
Roscelese may wish to make request regarding exceptions for dot point 2, but I'll leave that up to her. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to make material changes to the sanctions. The sanctions involved in my initial filing set minimum communication requirements. She breached; no one seriously argues otherwise. Claiming her breach was justified by WP:BANEX simply doesn't fly; BANEX requires that "If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible explanatory edit summary or that you link to an explanation detailing the exemption". That's pretty much equivalent to the communication requirement that Roscelese didn't comply with; it would be rather silly to say she should provide an edit summary explaining why she didn't have to provide an edit summary. Perhaps the Committee might amend the second clause of the remedy to allow an appropriate edit summary in lieu of talk page comment when reverting obvious vandalism/BLP violations, but Roscolese didn't even make that minimal effort here. The more significant issue, as I saw it, was the violation of sanction 2, making an automated rollback-type edit without providing an edit summary; given that rollback-type edits are pretty much limited to situations which would fall under BANEX, it seems clear to me that no exception was indicated by the Committee's language. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
Given that reversions are expressly defined as excluding "indisputable vandalism and BLP violations", reverting simple vandalism is outwith the scope of the restriction. In my view no amendment is needed and the answer to the question seems fairly plain. AGK [•] 01:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[Roscelese] is: indefinitely restricted to making no more than one revert per page per day (except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page
While that contains no exceptions on it's own, it unclear whether the exception in the first bullet is intended to apply only to the first restriction or to both restrictions. Thryduulf (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[Roscelese] is: indefinitely prohibited from making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert;
Proposed:
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.
Initiated by Elizium23 at 16:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Based on the activity over 14 months on Robert Sarah as well as low-grade activity on the flagship Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, the parties named have been unable to profit from the investigation, findings, admonishments and editor restrictions imposed by the aforementioned ArbCom case. It is therefore suggested that the case be revisited and appropriate discretionary sanctions be imposed that will give the appropriate tools to admins against chronic disruptive editing patterns.
This is a spurious arbitration request. There has been little or no disruptive editing to the articles cited from what I can see. Things have been much better. The need for a 1RR seems to be a way to enforce a particular point of view without permitting disagreement. I've seen very little from Elizium that suggests constructive engagement with other editors on specific issues of concern. Editors trying to frame articles based on a faith position need to realize this is a secular encyclopedia. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm generally in favor of more scrutiny in this topic area precisely because of the unencyclopedic edits of users who claim that describing homosexuality as a Nazi-like apocalyptic beast which should be criminally punished is just "advocating the traditional definition of marriage." However, I can also see the fruit-of-the-poison-tree argument that even if discretionary sanctions should have been in the case from the beginning, this instance is not suitable as a basis for imposing them now. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
" It is therefore suggested that the case be revisited and appropriate discretionary sanctions be imposed that will give the appropriate tools to admins against chronic disruptive editing patterns." A quick perusal of the edit history of Robert Sarah and the talk page will suggest that the one editing disruptively against consensus is, er, Elizium23. Regardless, this is a minor content dispute. Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.