Revision as of 23:36, 17 November 2023 view sourceToosieJoosie (talk | contribs)325 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:37, 17 November 2023 view source ToBeFree (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators127,459 edits →Ukrainian language: Removing request for arbitration: declined by the CommitteeNext edit → | ||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}} | ||
<noinclude>__TOC__</noinclude> | <noinclude>__TOC__</noinclude> | ||
== Ukrainian language == | |||
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 13:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
=== Proposed parties === | |||
<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator --> | |||
*{{userlinks|Crash48}}, ''filing party'' | |||
*{{userlinks|Rsk6400}} | |||
;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=1185244632 | |||
;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
* ] | |||
* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Third_opinion&diff=prev&oldid=1176410679 | |||
* ] | |||
=== Statement by Crash48 === | |||
In September 2023, I added into ] an outline of how and when the language ceased to be called ''Little Russian'', and started to be called ''Ukrainian''. | |||
Rsk6400 reverted '''all''' mentions of ''Little Russian'' as the language's name, while allowing the mentions of ''Ukrainian'' to remain in the article. His stated reason for this was that "Little Russian is an imperialist name, intended to suppress Ukrainian identity". Abundant references such as https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ukrainian-language demonstrating that ''Little Russian'' used to be the language's primary name worldwide couldn't change Rsk6400's mind on including the name in the Misplaced Pages article. | |||
In a discussion that followed, ] formulated his and Rsk6400's attitude even more clearly: "Little Russian is currently a weapon wielded directly in a genocidal war by its main instigator. Whatever its historical status has been, is normalizing it and perpetuating colonial violence." This, and other statements of Mzajac at the article talk page, e.g. disallowing citations from "imperialist" authors, are such an outright statement of ] that I took this case to ]. The only new participant from the noticeboard, ], supported mentioning ''Little Russian'' in the article as the historic name of the language. Rsk6400 to mentioning ''Little Russian'' as long as a "context" is added. | |||
On Sep 22nd, Rsk6400 a "context" to the article to his satisfaction. On Oct 29th, I him asking whether there are still any objections against reinstating the references for the uses of the "colonial" name in notable 19th century works by notable Ukrainian authors, in Russian Empire as well as outside. Receiving no response in two weeks, I the references on Nov 13th, to be promptly by Rsk6400 with a message saying "You have no consensus for that." | |||
Rsk6400 refuses to elaborate on his remaining objections against citations using the historic name, and in particular, my question addressed to him on the article talk page, dated Oct 29th, remains unanswered to this day. | |||
I request that Rsk6400's behaviour be reprimanded as POV-pushing, and the historical references using the ''Little Russian'' language name to be reinstated in the article. | |||
{{ping|Austronesier}} "instead, the language was usually named Ruthenian or Little Russian" is quoted from secondary source (Flier&Graziosi), whereas Rsk6400 insists on truncating the quoted part so as to exclude the name he dislikes. Thus, your statement accusing me of OR is demonstrably false. | |||
=== Statement by Rsk6400 === | |||
=== Statement by deepfriedokra === | |||
<s>{{yo|Crash48}} This probably needs to be hashed out at ] instead of here, and I note that this falls into ], where ArbCom has already ] Best ] (]) 14:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC).</s> | |||
:<s>This feels mostly like a content dispute, which needs ] . ] (]) 14:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)</s> | |||
::<s>In reviewing requester's talk, I recommend withdrawing this, accepting that their proposed content lacks support, and ''not'' risking examination of their behavior at ANI. ] (]) 15:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)</s> | |||
=== Statement by GhostOfDanGurney === | |||
Seconding Deepfriedokra that this feels more like an ] request rather than an ARBCOM filing. The community can definitely still handle this. ―<span style="background:#368ec9;border:solid 2px;border-radius:5px"> ''''']''''' </span> 14:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by ] === | |||
I have witnessed the discussion in ] for a while, but have remained silent so far. Trigered by this (IMO frivolous) report, here's my 2 pennies on the matter: | |||
@{{u|Crash48}}'s latest diff from 13 Nov is ] based on primary sources. It's as simple as that. They have repeatedly stated that primary sources are allowed in WP, but they fail to see that a) the inclusion of primary sources should not introduce ]; due weight is established by consulting secondary sources, and in some cases also by consensus alone, however not by saying "this source is reliable, period"; and b) primary sources must ''never'' be used to support a statement that draws a ''conclusion'' from these sources; in this case, the statement about terminological usage {{tq|"instead, the language was usually named ''Ruthenian'' or ''Little Russian''"}} is solely supported by primary sources that serve as ''attestations''; this is a no-go by basic WP policies, ''unless'' a secondary source draws the same conclusion based on the same or similar primary material; in this case, we cite the secondary source for ], while primary sources maximally can serve as illustrative material (again considering due weight, as supported by secondary sources. The fact that the filer tried to re-add the OR-laden text after @{{u|Rsk6400}}'s revert makes this report look like a ] to me. | |||
The only problematic part on @Rsk6400's part is 2RR:. Multiple reverts never solve a problem in a contentious topic area. –] (]) 14:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
===Statement by Robert McClenon (Ukrainian language)=== | |||
This is clearly a content dispute. It may also be a conduct dispute, but, if so, the community has not yet been asked to handle it. Many content disputes develop into conduct disputes, especially when the participants forget that ] is the ]. In many such cases, resolving the content dispute permits the conduct issue to subside. This is not really a statement for the arbitrators, who appear to be (correctly) declining this case. My question is for the parties. Do they want to try mediation at ]. I am willing to try to mediate this dispute. It may take longer than two weeks; mediation often does, regardless of what the introductory statement at DRN says. Mediation won't take as long as arbitration would, although it will take longer than arbitration that doesn't happen. So: Do the parties want to try moderated discussion, also known as mediation? | |||
] (]) 20:12, 15 November 2023 (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. | |||
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * --> | |||
=== Ukrainian language: Clerk notes === | |||
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
* | |||
=== Ukrainian language: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/0> === | |||
{{anchor|1=Ukrainian language: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small> | |||
*'''Decline''' It's not clear to me if there is any conduct issue here or if this is purely a content issue; I suspect it's a content issue. What is clear to me is that this isn't the right forum for this issue. I would encourage the editors concerned here to pursue other forms of ]. This may include use of the ] procedure if there is a conduct problem. ] (]) 16:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
*'''Decline''', per Barkeep49. ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 16:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
*'''Decline''', I agree with Barkeep49 & L235, this reads like a content dispute. ] (]) 17:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
* '''Decline'''. ] (]) 17:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
*'''Decline''' this is, at best, a minor behavioral issue not "ripe" for arbitration. ] (]) 19:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
*'''Decline'''. ] (]) 20:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
*'''Decline''' ]] 20:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
* Looking at this as a purely conduct issue, I note that Rsk6400 has entered into lengthy discussion with Crash48 in several places, and has been amending the article in line with Crash48's suggestions, so progress is being made. Sometimes it takes time. And it helps to look at the dispute from the other side so nobody gets locked into a single viewpoint. What I am seeing is what Misplaced Pages is good at: discussing subtle issues to arrive at a consensus of what is appropriate. It's not always easy, and it's not always pleasant, and it can take a long time, and it's not always successful, but it is taking place here. My suggestion to ] is not to look for ways of silencing Rsk6400, but to look at ways you can work together as you both have the same interest and intent: to improve the article. '''Decline'''. ] (]) 11:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Both articles Afro Tech + Afro - prolonged edit disputes & Constant block motions against me == | == Both articles Afro Tech + Afro - prolonged edit disputes & Constant block motions against me == |
Revision as of 23:37, 17 November 2023
"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.Shortcut
Requests for arbitration
Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
---|---|---|---|
Both articles Afro Tech + Afro - prolonged edit disputes & Constant block motions against me | Motions | 17 November 2023 | 0/0/0 |
Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
---|---|---|---|
Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motionsMotion name | Date posted |
---|---|
Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
Shortcuts
About this page Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
Both articles Afro Tech + Afro - prolonged edit disputes & Constant block motions against me
Initiated by ToosieJoosie (talk) at 23:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Proposed parties
- ToosieJoosie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Solidest (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- https://en.wikipedia.org/Afro_Tech
- https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:ToosieJoosie#Following_WP:MOS,_reading_infobox_documentation,_posting_false_sources
- https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Daniel_Case#Afro_Tech_semiprotection
- https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Advice/_Assistance_Request
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Third_opinion&oldid=1185425703
- https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:ToosieJoosie
Statement by ToosieJoosie
As much as I understand that WP:ETN includes feedback I absolutely loathe the sarcastic edit summaries. I feel as though I am constantly being WP:FOLLOWING (ed) as well as being baited into WP:EDITWAR's daily so that I can be motioned inot getting blocked via ANI thread daily, even when I am not editing on the specific articles. Constructive critism I have built a thick skin towards and become more acceptingopposed to have been 'as sensitive in the first few days of using my account and making edits, however the prolonged content disputes/ edit wars as well as "constant threats" and motions for me to be blocked has become highly stressful as well as demotivating to say, the least. off topic: I also recently experienced an edit in my edit history I did not recognize (didn't recall doing myself/ couldn't explain) - not accusing anyone specifically here but to highlight ontop of the "stress" and unfortunate unenjoyable edit experience I am currently facing. Please assist and/or advise further regarding the content disputes as well as whether I face being blocked/ warnings etc.
Statement by Solidest
Statement by AirshipJungleman29
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.
Both articles Afro Tech + Afro - prolonged edit disputes & Constant block motions against me: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Both articles Afro Tech + Afro - prolonged edit disputes & Constant block motions against me: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)