Requests for arbitration

Initiated by — Kaalakaa ^(talk) at 07:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed parties

• Kaalakaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Anachronist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Cullen328 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Jayron32 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Link 1
• Link 2

Statement by Kaalakaa

Anachronist, as an admin, seems to have some chronic issues with understanding our policies and guidelines.

• Previously, on 3 August 2023 [5], Anachronist, citing WP:BLUESKY, claimed that you don't need to cite sources for content based on your own observations in a museum [6]. His arguments were refuted by Cullen328 [7] and Jayron32 [8]. Jayron32 particularly told Anachronist, "Please stop confusing the new users here, and if you can't speak knowledgeably on this stuff, please stop." [9]

• On 3 September 2033, Anachronist reverted my edit with an edit summary "This has nothing to do with censorship, but with WP:BURDEN" [10]. So I opened a discussion and provided him with a quote from the source, but Anachronist said, "I am not arguing that the statement was unsourced. I am saying that for a biography, we don't need to put undue emphasis on analysis of statements of faith." [11] This reply of his, in my opinion, has no relevancy with WP:BURDEN, and displays his misunderstanding of the policy.

• In November 2023, on his talk page, Anachronist was involved in an argument with AndytheGrump about a book published by University Press [12]. AndytheGrump appeared to be planning to take Anachronist to ArbCom to request that he be desysopped, stating: "you seem so clearly intent on misinterpreting multiple policies in order to exclude a legitimate academic source from a contentious article on entirely spurious grounds." At the end of the section, Anachronist said, "I'm going to sleep now. A dispute over content should be continued on the article talk page. I'll look for it tomorrow." However, Anachronist did not reply again on that article's talk page [13].

• On 26 February 2024, the arbitrators pointed out that Anachronist's understanding of WP:ARBECR was incorrect. [14].

• Recently, Anachronist used this essay to support his arguments [15] [16], but it turns out the essay was written only by himself. It contains many extraordinary claims about university presses, but many of them are not supported by reliable sources. The essay also seems to contradict our WP:OR policy, which states that "books published by university presses" are among "the most reliable sources." Within the essay, he also describes Russ Rodgers, a command historian of the US Army and former adjunct professor of history, as a hobbyist historian.

Statement by Anachronist

The bee in Kaalakaa's bonnet seems to arise from objections to his reliance on a source (Rodgers) in the Muhammad article for which he is the sole proponent, as that source is the primary topic of interaction Kaalakaa has had with me. For reference:

• Talk:Muhammad/Archive 34#Suspect sources
• Talk:Muhammad/Archive 34#Russ Rogers statements
• Talk:Muhammad/Archive 35#Recent neutrality concerns (about 2/3 the way into the conversation)

Iskandar323, DeCausa, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, and Admiral90 participated. Kaalakaa is the only editor promoting that source. The other points brought up appear to be WP:COATRACK grasping, and I won't waste my time addressing them, what happened happened, others are welcome to comment for better or worse. Otherwise, I'll add that the essay at WP:UPRESS, which seems also to irritate Kaalakaa who falsely claims it cites no reliable sources, is based on citations to two such sources, as well as the community discussions above, for which he also refuses to accept the arguments given.

I freely admit that I was inconsistent in my understanding of AE decisions. We live and learn. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen328

Statement by Jayron32

Statement by AndyTheGrump

• Regarding my November 2023 dispute with Anachronist over content in the contentious Coerced religious conversion in Pakistan article, it is well documented in the thread already linked on Anachronist's talk page, so I'll only summarise. There are, in my opinion, at least two factors that need to be considered here.

(1) Anachronist and myself seem to have entirely differing understanding regarding constraints put on editing under active arbitration rules. As far as I am concerned, what happened was quite simple. The article was made subject to AE, Anachronist removed sourced content then in place, and per AE I "challenged by reversion". Anachronist's position seems to be that rather than applying to content in the article at the time, 'reversion' can be backdated at will, to whatever version of an article that suits a contributor.

(2) Anachronist's understanding of WP:RS policy in regard to the disputed content is without question utterly at odds with anything I've seen the community support in decades. He makes starts by arguing that it's questionable that this assistant professor is even a notable scholar per WP:NPROF as if WP:N had anything to do with WP:RS, and than doubles down by describing the author as "WP:FRINGE". Per my comment on Anachronist's talk page, the author, Jürgen Schaflechner is an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Heidelburg. He has been doing fieldwork directly related to the topic of the article for something like a decade. He is the co-editor, and a chapter contributor, to a book published by the Oxford University Press, where he analyses in detail the subject of the 'coerced conversion' topic. In summary, Schaflechner is as credible a source on a topic as Wikipedia policy could possibly expect, and about as non-fringe as could be imagined.

Ultimately Anachronist seemed to half-heartedly back down over some of these highly questionable claims, though still insisting that I had "violated AE" (see [17]). And frankly, even if that were true (I'm sure those familiar with policy will agree it isn't, after looking at the timeline, and the arguments presented), Anachronist's absurd arguments regarding the validity of a published academic - an anthropologist writing on a subject he had been researching through fieldwork for many years - as a source can only lead me to the conclusion that Anachronist is unfitted to be an admin. I cannot in good faith believe that it is acceptable for anyone in that position to be so at odds with core Wikipedia policy and yet remain in a position of trust.

Re Barkeep below: If ArbCom cannot accept evidence demonstrating that an admin lacks any understanding of the core policies they are being asked to ensure compliance with, what mechanism then exists for the community to deal with the issue? WP:ANI cannot, per policy, de-sysop. If ArbCom won't look into the matter, there appear to be no alternatives. I refuse to believe that this impasse has ever been sanctioned by the community that places admins in a position of trust.

Responding to Barkeeps question as to what outcome I am looking for, I'll first clarify that I'm only discussing concerns regarding my dispute with Anachronist over the Coerced religious conversion in Pakistan article. I have no comment on other issues, and haven't really looked into them much beyond concurring with JSS that Anachronist's essay belongs in user space.

As for preferred outcomes, it appears that ArbCom doesn't see it within its remit to look into whether admins have the level of understanding of core policy one might assume was necessary to adequately function as an admin, making my own objectives moot. I would however ideally like at least to see an acknowledgement from Anachronist that WP:FRINGE does not extend to university professors discussing subject matter firmly within their own level of expertise. Certainly not while precisely zero sources are offered suggesting that anyone of similar expertise has disagreed with them.

Statement by RoySmith

From what I've read above, the issues with Anachronist don't have anything to do with their conduct as an admin. Even if we take every one of these complaints at face value, it all adds up to not understanding sourcing policy. Citing your own essay in an argument isn't a good look, but again, it's not an abuse of the admin tools. Looking at this another way, were they to be desysopped, that wouldn't affect their ability to do the things that they've been accused of doing. So I don't see why this is being framed as a request to desysop.

Statement by Deepfriedokra

As I see no links to WP:AN or any other dispute resolution process, I imagine this will be declined.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Serial

Regarding RoySmith's query, the committee would have to ask the filer for their understanding, but mine would be along the lines that if someone can hold such an... adjacent (mis)understanding of some of our most fundamental policies, then can they be trusted with advanced permissions? The way things are going, I don't know. ——Serial Number 54129 13:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kaalakaa needs, metaphorically speaking, to be hung out to dry on this one. They are trying to weaponize Arbcom to win a content dispute, simple as that. And to push a pretty FRINGEPOV in doing so. The reason there is no previously attempted dispute resolution—especially at ANI, where one might imagine such a scurrilous ignorance of 'policies and guidelines' to be welcomed for community denunciation—is that they would get told a) it's a content dispute with no use (let alone misuse) of the tools, and b) that their own over-reliance on one particular source is also problematic. Either way, Kaalakaa obviously does not want to risk this, hence the smoke and mirrors regarding policy ignorance, etc.

There is a case to be heard. Not here. Can the committee's recommendation be that this be returned certiorari to WP:ANI, where justice will doubtless take its natural course. ——Serial Number 54129 15:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lemonaka

Is this Arbcom request filed correctly? The links for previous discussion or WP:DR went missing. Might be these following discussions between them?

Talk:Muhammad/Archive_34#Recent_revert_that_cites_WP:BURDEN or this one [18]? Have there been any discussion on WP:ANI before coming to here since ARBCOM is really the last step?---Lemonaka 14:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hammersoft

It may be a good idea to place Wikipedia:Reliable sources (university presses) for WP:MFD. Its only (very few) uses are by Anachronist, and it appears to contradict standing norms. As to the rest of this, perhaps a WP:TROUT is warranted. But, sanctions? Having a few mistaken impressions and exiting a conversation doesn't seem to rise to the bar of sanctioning someone. Admins don't enjoy special protections above any editor here, but if this case is accepted it's guaranteed to result in Anachronist being de-adminned. The levels of off base behavior simply don't rise to that level. Anachronist has used admin privileges more than 14,000 times, or about a thousand a year since passing their RfA. If Anachronist is really that far off the rails, let's see some evidence of inappropriate or flat wrong use of admin privileges. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoidh: The history over time proves otherwise. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoidh: As I noted above, admins don't enjoy additional protections. My point is that if the case is accepted, Anachronist will be de-adminned, and that must be taken into account. Yes take cases on their own merits, but don't blindly walk into the turbine blades in the name of justice. Does this case really rise to that level or are there alternatives? 14,000 admin actions getting it right across 14 years and now we are here? There's more going on here, and admins aren't supposed to be perfect. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record; every time ArbCom has accepted a party named case about an administrator over the last six years the administrator has been de-adminned. I stopped counting after 10. I guess somehow when ArbCom's batting 1.000 it's reasonable to assume Anachronist wouldn't be de-adminned if this case is accepted. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statemennt By Just Step Sideways

Just FYI I moved the essay back to their userspace just now, noting in the move log "per our longstanding policy of keeping extreme minority opinion essays in the userspace of the person who wrote them" Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ad Orientem

The issues being raised are legitimate and warrant discussion. However, and as noted by others above, there is no evidence that this matter has been previously addressed in any other forum. Absent a credible claim that Anachronist has abused the tools, this appears to be premature and I suggest the committee decline the requested case. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DeCausa

"Anachronist, as an admin, seems to have some chronic issues..." Meh. Some potentially troutable interpretations of policy at most that would raise a minor ripple if this had been brought to ANI first. My experience of these two editors have been at the Muhammad article. I've seen and interacted with Anachronist there for the last decade and a half (both under current and former name). He's been a balanced, reasonable and calming influence on what can be a choppy talk page. Certainly a net positive there. Kaalakaa appeared there about 12 months ago and their voluminous edits resulted in a complete re-write of this prominent article over 2-3 months - but it's been with a discernible POV, and a dubious selection of sources. This happened less than two months after the account was created. Kaalakaa showed a high familiarity with the nuts and bolts of editing and policy for such a new account. See WP:RSN#RfC: Sources for Muhammad for more on their sourcing choices. As was pointed out in that thread there is discomfort with what Kaalaaka has pushed through, including from Anachronist. Hemiauchenia summarises it accurately here. This Arbcom request is about attacking opposition in a content dispute and the Committee should dismiss. DeCausa (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also, what Joe Roe said (below). DeCausa (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Red-tailed hawk

I don't quite see why Arbitration needs to be sought here if there haven't been prior attempts at dispute resolution. There isn't some egregious abuse of administrative tools here, and this fundamentally looks to be a sourcing dispute in a particular article.

Rather than entertaining arbitration here, I would encourage the ArbCom to decline this and the parties to pursue normal content dispute resolution. This can take the form of discussions on WP:RSN regarding the reliability of particular sources, as well as formal RfCs on the article talk page if there is some article-specific content issue. But I just don't see how we need to invoke the last resort of arbitration at this point. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Joe Roe

If being wrong about something is now grounds for a desysop, this is going to be a big case. Our policies aren't written on stone tablets; if Anachronist believes that museum collections constitute verifiable sources, he's perfectly entitled to make that case. Maybe he'll convince others, maybe not. In the mean time, as long as he's not using his tools outside of the bounds of established consensus, there's no case for misconduct and misthinking generally doesn't need ArbCom intervention. All four 'incidents' presented here boil down to the same thing: Anachronist thinks something wrong; Anachronist used the WRONGLETTERS in an edit summary; Anachronist got the AE process wrong; Anachronist went so far as to write down the wrong things that he thinks in a wrong essay and made up some WRONGLETTERS to use in his wrong argument. If you don't worry about whether Anachronist is right or wrong, the dispute evaporates.

Also, what is actually wrong with WP:UPRESS? Some university press books may not be reliable due to promotion of fringe topics or obscure viewpoints is an obvious statement of fact. You can say the same thing about peer-reviewed journals or newspapers or anything else we consider generally to be indicator of reliability – they're run by humans, so sometimes they screw up. The rest of the essay just gives some examples and plausible explanations for why a book might be unreliable despite being published by a university press. I don't see why it can't be in projectspace. @Just Step Sideways: What's the "extreme minority view"? – Joe (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Trainsandotherthings

I once had a strong disagreement with an administrator, whom I viewed as actively contravening policy in regards to notability and AfD. I launched an RfC, which settled the matter against the admin in question's interpretation. And that was the end of it. That (or some other form of establishing consensus and/or dispute resolution) should be the resolution here as well, not an ArbCom case. I find Aoidh's comments below to be very convincing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hydrangeans

Some comments based on what I've observed:

• From Anachronist: the essay at WP:UPRESS [...] is based on citations to two such sources: The two sources in User:Anachronist/Reliable sources (university presses) (permanent link) that aren't merely links to books claimed to be unacceptable to cite appear to be this Vox article, verifying the statement that peer review [...] is a higher level of quality control than books published by commercial presses; and this excerpt from The Book Proposal Book, cited to describe peer review. Reliable sources warranting the essay's claim that its listed books would not be acceptable to cite (e. g. that reviews panned them or that scholars scorn them) aren't provided.
  The TBPB excerpt is also cited selectively, with the essay making some conclusions that seem contrary to what the book says. According to TBPB, lacking bidirectional anonymity (an author doesn't know who peer reviewers are, but peer reviewers often know who the author is) means that reviewers will also be commenting on your scholarly profile and perceived authority to write the book you’re proposing, using what they know about an author's experience to also judge whether the book is academically reasonable and worthwhile. The essay takes the information and runs in the other direction, arguing that this practice can result in a favorable bias toward a reviewer's fellow colleague (and this even though the cited excerpt doesn't verify the implied claim that university presses may task authors' friends with peer reviewing).
• From Joe Roe: Also, what is actually wrong with WP:UPRESS? [...] I don't see why it can't be in projectspace.: It's true that human error means [s]ome university press books may not be reliable is reasonable and basically true. But some of the specific examples that the essay highlights seem questionable. The essay claims that OUP's American Holocaust would not be acceptable for citing facts on Wikipedia because its argument that European colonization of the Americas constituted a genocide is considered sensationalist by many and hedges that only [s]ome scholars accept the book's controversial perspectives. While "some" is vague enough that it's technically true, looking at numerous of the sources cited in Native American genocide in the United States goes to show how understated that is. Arguing that Euro-American colonizers inflicted genocide on American Indians isn't some "fringe" and unambiguously controversial position that demonstrates how unreliable university presses are; it's a view numerous respectable academics hold, even if one grants it's not a universal interpretation across humanity. Generalship of Muhammad is also listed as unacceptable for citation, but the essay has no reference to (or seemingly awareness of) Islamicist (as in a scholar studying Islam) John Walbridge's book review and his nuanced assessment involving both praise and occasional critique (most significantly for inattention to religiosity).

Overall, in some of the linked discussions, Anachronist's tack can seem not only anti-intellectual but also contrary to consensus, especially since WP:SCHOLARSHIP is part of a long-accepted content guideline. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Anachronist)

This appears to be a complaint that an administrator has eccentric views on the reliability of sources. In particular, Anachronist thinks that university presses are often unreliable because they permit professors with fringe views to publish their fringe ideas. Is this an issue that needs to be addressed by ArbCom?

There is at least one question that has already been asked about whether the threshold for requesting an ArbCom case have been met:

• 1. Has this dispute already been discussed at other community forums? The answer appears to be that it has not been.

There is another question that should also be asked, that does not seem to have been asked:

• 2. Does this dispute have any bearing on the fitness of the administrator to continue to have the administrative tools?

I don't think that question 2 has been answered, and I don't think that an eccentric view about the reliability of sources affects the fitness of the subject to continue to be an administrator. I see nothing in this complaint, for instance, to the effect that the subject has threatened to block an editor or delete or redact material for using questioned material. I don't think that this dispute affects the fitness of the administrator to continue to be an administrator. Experienced editors are allowed to have eccentric views, providing that they are civil about them and do not allow their views to interfere with editing. Administrators have the same freedom to have eccentric views as other experienced editors.

This case, as filed, should be declined as not affecting fitness to use the administrative tools.

If this filing is expanded to explain how administrator status is affected, I may request another 200 words. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Anachronist: Clerk notes

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

• @Kaalakaa: you have about 125 words for any responses. AndyTheGrump you have 85 words. If either of you need an extension please ask for it prior to posting. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronist: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• My standard for accepting cases are three questions: Is there some reason ArbCom needs to handle this case? Are the allegations, if proven true, enough to merit a sanction? Is there enough evidence to suggest the allegations have a reasonable chance to be proven true? The latter two questions appear to have the answer as yes, considering I apply a lower standard for admins. So far the first question, even though this is an admin, seems to be a no. I will wait to see if more evidence emerges to answer that question before deciding whether to vote to accept or decline this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  While I am not yet convinced this is issue is ready for ArbCom intervention, I don't consider AN/ANI to be a mandatory step prior to the committee hearing an admin case. For me the ARCA is such a step. And the community nature of the teahouse discussion serves some of the same purpose that an AN/ANI discussion would have, despite the fact that the teahouse is obviously and clearly not a dispute resolution forum. If the filer had therefore filled out the paperwork of this case differently including one or both of those in the DR section it wouldn't effect, for me, my current stance. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @AndyTheGrump:: are you looking for an outcome here other than desysop? Because even if Anachronist is wrong on certain areas of policy, if they're not wrong in the places they're using the tools it would seem to call for a different response than if there is tool misuse. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hammersoft: I don't think a desysop is or should be the only possible result and certainly isn't a guaranteed result. @Kaalakaa: cases do generally require prior dispute resolution and the diffs provided so far do not show behavior that is severe enough that it requires an ArbCom case bypassing the community processes (per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy and Wikipedia:Administrators#Arbitration Committee review). If this is a situation where Anachronist has lost the trust or confidence of the community (per WP:ADMINACCT) then the community needs to have a reasonable chance to decide if that's the case. - Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hammersoft: Highly likely but not guaranteed, and the percentage of past desysops should not be a consideration in whether a case is accepted. Each case should be weighed on its own merits. - Aoidh (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "If the case is accepted, Anachronist will be de-adminned" seems incorrect to me. I tend to be the most gung-ho arb for taking mops and I can see myself rejecting a desysoping proposal. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]