Requests for arbitration

Initiated by Thinker78 (talk) at 05:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed parties

• Thinker78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Johnuniq (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• 331dot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Bon courage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification ScottishFinnishRadish
• diff of notification Johnuniq
• diff of notification Bishonen
• diff of notification 331dot
• diff of notification Bon courage

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• First appeal of block
• Second appeal of block

Statement by Thinker78

I am a veteran editor familiar with the civility, vandalism, consensus and dispute resolution policies, which I regularly consult, ponder about, analyze, and contribute to. I was unduly blocked[1] on 10 February 2024 after being involved in a content dispute.

At times, I notice in my watchlist removal of an ip talk page post. I check it out and most of the time I don't do anything. But sometimes it appears to be an undue removal. I can spend an hour analyzing and investigating the post of an ip. I don't expect others to do that but I expect others to respect it as part of the consensus process. These are some examples of my restores (I have done only about 16 in 8 years): [2], [3], [4] [5]

Ips also have the Wikipedian right per the Five Pillars to present their points in talk pages. I protest the stance that it is a waste of time or disruptive trying to assume good faith and trying to be more considerate with their criticisms. In fact, unduly removing their criticisms or legitimate posts instead of respectfully addressing them damages the project.

My edits of concern and publicizing objectively a discussion with limited reach elsewhere were based on Wikipedia guidance[6] but administrators showed lack of collegiality, lack of consideration and lack of respect when treating me like an anonymous troll,Wikipedia:Civility disregarding the consensus policy and dispute resolution process. Johnuniq and ScottishFinnishRadish issued their warning[7] and block against me without proper discussion.

Admin 331dot did not properly explain why they denied my appeal,[8] in essence just saying they liked it (WP:TALKDONTREVERT). Bishonen went further and not only did not explain why the points of my new appeal did not apply [9] (which I did only because 331dot advised me I could), but further blocked me, mentioning length. But WP:TALK, "If you really need to make a detailed, point-by-point post, see below for tips." They mention number of editors against me, but whatever points they may have had in the content dispute, they could have told me in a discussion beforehand without any need of accusations, warnings or blocks. (Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling).

Because of the perceived arbitrariness, lack of collegiality, imposing instead of seeking consensus, threats and blocks of the whole proceeding, it felt to me (not accusing anyone of) like I was being editorially lynched and I was deeply demoralized. An editor in the thread even said when criticizing me, "It does not matter if your block is entirely unjust. All you can do now is kowtow [...]"[10]

Response to statement by User:Firefly

{The issue is that the block (one week for a first) was arbitrary and ignored the consensus policy, made because I was following guidance on publicizing the discussion objectively, not canvassing. I believe this block per WP:ADMINCOND was egregious poor judgment. Per Arbitration/Case/GiantSnowman, Administrators are trusted members of the community, who are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and are held to a high standard of conduct, not mild. } Thinker78 (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to statement by User:Primefac

{Issue is of pressing importance not because of an individual case but rather a system-wide question. Should administrators be able to arbitrarily block editors without even attempting beforehand to collegially counsel editors, specially experienced editors? Should administrators rather use the consensus process as a first step to point out what said administrators believe are mistakes or other issues in the editors' edits? This, in cases where there is not an evident need to block WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. Also in such discussions, editors can point out what they believe are Wikipedia guidance that backs their edits and also perceived shortcomings of the administrators' views. In addition, this avoids surreptitious arbitrarily retaliatory and unduly punitive blocks. WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. Plus, see my response to Firefly.} Thinker78 (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

I am very busy right now IRL, so I don't have time for much other than a short statement. I blocked after they started using Wikipedia talk space to deal with perceived behavior issues. This came up earlier here, after they restored a section that was removed as being in the wrong venue. They have also demonstrated a lack of understanding of what falls under disruptive discussion and editing, and appropriate venues for discussion, after I blocked an IP for this harassment, which was discussed here and here. If anything else is needed from me I'd appreciate a ping, because although I have this page watchlisted I'm not paying much attention to my watchlist. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

I was going to suggest that the case request be declined with a suggestion to Thinker78 that it might be necessary to tolerate the views of the editors who commented at User talk:Thinker78#Chemtrails (permalink) and User talk:Thinker78#February 2024 (permalink). However, reviewing User talk:Thinker78#DTTR (permalink) shows that a similar situation has arisen. That concerns a comment by an IP that was reverted by an editor and restoredparaphrased by Thinker78. A subsequent discussion is at Talk:Mahatma Gandhi#Revert of ip, no explanation (permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• My initial statement had an error pointed out by Super Goku V and I have adjusted it. At Talk:Mahatma Gandhi: diffs of IP's comment and Thinker78's comment. The latter paraphrased the former and added sources. Johnuniq (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen

I regret having spoken impatiently here, but I still believe it was time to revoke talkpage access. Bishonen | tålk 10:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by 331dot

I'm not really sure what the issue is here, but I'm willing to answer questions. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bon courage

Remind me I must write an essay about Wiki-saviour syndrome. Every so often it happens an editor shows up who perceives there is some perfect lost state of Wikipedia that the community has strayed from. Sometimes lost prophets are invoked (Larry). They then take it upon themselves to kick the moneylenders out of the temple and restore grace. It never ends well. Bon courage (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Super Goku V

Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory seems to be another talk page with dozen or more reverts like Talk:2023, Talk:Minecraft, Talk:Harry Styles, Talk:Earth, Talk:Mathematics, Talk:Music, Talk:History, etc. There is likely over two dozen more examples that could be listed. The problems with those talk pages generally are that IP users and new accounts don't understand the Wikipedia is not a forum policy, leading to numerous reverts. The chemtrail talk page isn't as bad as the history talk page in terms of reverts, but there have been clear issues given the talk page banners.

I will give Thinker78 credit for trying to look out for these IP users and new accounts, but I think he made an error in restoring in this specific case. I would encourage Thinker78 to consider leaving a comment on the discussion if they restore in the future and to be more cautious as well. I believe that could have avoid this situation, or at least resolved it better than what occurred.

Regarding the events at the user talk page, I would say that it is disappointing. From my limited perspective, it feels like a swarm of users descended with some of them increasing the issue instead of trying to resolve it. Sadly, it seems that things spiraled when they shouldn't have and now here we are. I think there was a misunderstanding by Thinker78 about Dispute resolution by looking at SEEKHELP instead of CONDUCTDISPUTE. That mistake seems to have led to the block, which is understandable.

The only [One minor] thing that I could see as actionable was some behavior that leans toward Gravedancing elsewhere, but even that doesn't seem eligible for ANI or the Committee. This case does not rise to the level of the 2018 case mentioned. I think the parties just need to reflect on what happened, filing party included, and try to move forward. To borrow some words from that case, admining is a "thankless and socially difficult job" and that can apply to trying to help newer users and IPs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Goku V (talk • contribs) 9:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Can you double-check as I don't see any comment restored by Thinker78 at Mahatma Gandhi, just a discussion there. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. Thank you for double checking. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Striking [and adding] some text due to Aquillion's statement as ANI might be appropriate for something else. Still believe this case is a decline for the Committee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Goku V (talk • contribs) 22:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC) (Fixed at 07:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

Quoting Super Goku V: I will give Thinker78 credit for trying to look out for these IP users and new accounts, but I think he made an error in restoring in this specific case. Maybe a reasonable assessment, but it shouldn't've led to blocking. I don't see any rationale for administrative action on this at all, much less that severe. It's something that could've been hashed out in user talk, or ANI if necessary. Also, as I've suggested elsewhere, a workable solution to this sort of thing is to not delete comments that lean toward WP:NOTFORUM, but respond briefly to anything substantive in them, note that WP is not a forum, notify the user page about NOTFORUM policy, and then close and archive the thread. This tends to prevent a "censorship of newbies" versus "encouragement of NOTFORUM ranting" debate from even happening.

Quoting SGV again: it feels like a swarm of users descended with some of them increasing the issue instead of trying to resolve it. ... admining is a "thankless and socially difficult job" ....: User talk pages largely exist for editors to work out their differences. This can sometimes get heated, but it's a process and it generally works itself out. When it fails to, we have ANI and other noticeboards. There was insufficient cause for a block much less for talk-page-access revocation. WP is not actually disrupted by an editor defending their actions and objecting to actions that make them feel put-upon, even if they do it vociferously. In short, admins need to take action to protect the project, not to muzzle its participants when they're not actually breaking anything or doing any actual harm.

Also, ScottishFinnishRadish's diffs at Thinker78's user-talk of Thinker78 "canvassing" are not canvassing, but normal, neutrally worded notice in two completly appropriate venues. It is a bit disturbing to me that two different admins jumped on Thinker78 for restoring IP-editor comments on the basis that one admin thinks the material is "nonsense" (Johnuniq), which is content involvement, and in ScottishFinnishRadish's case of accusing Thinker78 of "a recurring pattern of not understanding what is disruptive" after Thinker78 questioned SFR's previous block of someone else in the same content area, which smacks of a different kind of involvement (retributive).

Diclaimer(?): I've had disputations with Thinker78 in the past (including recently), but also a civil and productive discussion (via email). So, I'm neither a Thinker78 fan nor critic. To the extent Thinker78 has been intemperate in some of this, I think WP:HOTHEADS may be worth reading, especially the WP:CAPITULATE section, which I think pretty much describes what happened with this blocking: if one makes enough noise, it may inspire someone else, with the ability to do so, to apply a gag. But this should not actually happen unless the project really is being disrupted. CIVIL, NPA, AGF and related policies are not requirements for brevity, cheerfulness, or obsequious politeness. Some discussions will be a bit heated, and long, and that is okay.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Thinker78 has been going around restoring obviously non-constructive drive-by comments for some time, eg. [11][12][13][14][15] (the last was removed under ARBECR). --Aquillion (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Geogene

Talk pages should not be used to post time-wasting, inactionable, or abusive drive-by comments, as shown in the various diffs that have been posted. It concerns me that Thinker has used free speech ("rights") rhetoric in filing for this case, i.e. there is a right to make these kinds of comments on article talk pages. If Arbs decline, then this should go to AN/I per WP:PREVENTATIVE. Geogene (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and article talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing improvements to articles. They are not a forum for free speech nor for general commentary about an article's topic, and off-topic personal commentary on controversial topics is regularly refactored or removed entirely, and not just by administrators. This is moderation, not censorship, and it's necessary to ensure that discussions stay on-topic and to ensure the smooth running of the project.

Thinker78 has described their actions as "stand[ing] against undue censorship", and believes that doing so "mak[es] Wikipedia a more welcoming environment". They also seem to have an extreme view of the assume good faith policy, believing it compels us to find good faith in every word written here, which is a long way from the generally accepted consensus that we have no duty to entertain obvious trolls, and removing comments that are intended to distract editors into political arguments don't make Wikipedia more welcoming; quite the opposite actually.

It might be a noble pursuit to monitor reverts of IP editors for coaching opportunities, but as Chris troutman put it in the most recent discussion, "there is a difference between patience for a new editor unaware of how we operate and a crank who brought their derangement to Wikipedia." An IP editor who complains that we don't pay enough lip service to Donald Trump, or that calling chemtrails a conspiracy theory is "racist", or who openly impugns the intelligence of an administrator, aren't editors interested in how Wikipedia works, they're just here to disrupt with their petty grievances. They don't need to be educated, they need to be shown the door. Again this is not censorship, it's moderation.

Numerous editors have tried to explain this to Thinker78 over several years of related incidents, but even after being blocked and having talk access revoked, this case request shows they still don't get it. For that reason I think a case is warranted, as this is a pattern of disruptive conduct which the community has been unable to resolve. A case would examine whether Thinker78 is really upholding a principled position about editing being for everyone, or if they're really just watching for provocative comments to restore so they can then fight with administrators about it to make a point about what they wrongly perceive as censorship. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

Just as a general fyi, the community recently discussed the removal of other users' comments here: [16]. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zaathras

Pls decline, largely per Geogene, this may need to head to ANI. The filer feels they are a voice against censorship of "right-wing people" (their own words, 26 July 2022), when other editors remove disruptive thread starters made by IP users or newly-created accounts. It has been a practice in a contentious topic areas to nip clear bad-faith comments early before things get out of hand. This user opposes this practice, which let to their week block. And it is still happening.

Statement by Acroterion

I guess I started the events at Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory by reverting obvious nonsense. [17]. I have a little trouble imagining that the IP's post was anything but trolling, using the familiar "racist" trope for anything someone doesn't like. While the subsequent response may have been a bit more harsh than it needed to be, Thinker78's enablement and even justification of straightforward trolling as constructive is unhelpful. I don't see this as a matter for arbitration, this looks like extended forum-shopping. I do think that some form of editing restriction for Thinker78 may become necessary if they continue in this rather quixotic fashion. As I warned them, purposely reverting such comments can be viewed as an endorsement of the problematic edit, which is not a good look. Acroterion (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Swatjester

The only thing I'd like to contribute here is in response to a claim by Thinker, that Ips also have the Wikipedian right per the Five Pillars to present their points in talk pages. That is absolutely not the case. Editing Wikipedia is not a *right*. Nor is "presenting points" the purpose of Wikipedia. This misunderstanding of our core principles and purpose by Thinker seems, in this case, likely to lead to further WP:POINTy and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior if not corrected. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JPxG

It does not seem terribly likely that this case will be accepted, but I will make a statement, mostly to the effect that I think there's a persistent problem with talk pages and something ought to be done about it.

I struggle to see any reason why, outside of genuinely worthless garbage (e.g. "love too diarrhea shit my Pants" or "Adfsfkkeeeesssllfddmm" or "teh guy who wrote this is a MORoNN!!") the project is improved by people deputizing themselves the talk page police and going through to remove anything they think is stupid, or already addressed, or whatever -- and doubly so when there's dispute over whether the comments are indeed worthless.

It really doesn't take that much time to {{hat}} the section with "Already answered, see Archive 8" or whatever. And it isn't that hard to just close it normally, in a professional manner -- we do not need to dismiss people with total removal or smarmy WP:SUPERHAT dunks. This makes the entire project look stupid and petty, in exchange for the benefit of... nothing, as far as I can tell. If somebody is making a genuine attempt to improve the article by pointing out bias and recommending concrete changes be made, then I think this is a legitimate use of the talk page, even if their opinion is stupid or wrong. Personally, I think the comment in question here is stupid, but its stupidity makes it much easier to respond to and archive it, not harder! Certainly, they should not expect to have their comment taken seriously and responded to in earnest, but it's really hard for me to understand what the benefit is supposed to be of aggressively removing comments in this manner.

If the five seconds required to type out an actual response and close the section is too much, then maybe no edits should be getting made, and it should be left to someone else who does have the time. By analogy, if you want to cook some chicken and you only have ten seconds to spare, you simply pick a different meal, you don't eat the raw chicken and get salmonella and say "well what I was supposed to do in just ten seconds". If there is not enough time to do the task properly, it is often better to just not do it at all. jp×g🗯️ 05:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals: Clerk notes

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

Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/4/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• I do not think there is anything here that rises to the level of requiring arbitration. Talk pages of prominent articles, or those about controversial subjects, frequently attract "drive-by" comments either angry at us for not adhering to their particular point of view, making comments for the sake of commenting, or just posting word salad. These comments are rarely serious attempts at improving the encyclopedia. I tend to think the best course of action is to ignore these comments unless they are - by their nature or volume - disruptive to collaboration on the talk page, but equally I don't think removing the comment in question here was improper.
  On the block, I'm not sure it's one I personally would have made - absent evidence that Thinker78 had made a habit of restoring such comments against the advice of others - but that's as far as I get. It's important to remember that we as volunteers have a limited number of hours as a group to 'spend', and dealing with "I don't like it" comments from users otherwise not engaged with Wikipedia sucks up some of that time. I entirely sympathise with the view that volunteer time is indeed better spent elsewhere. firefly ( t · c ) 10:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Converting this to a formal decline per my reasoning above. firefly ( t · c ) 19:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I largely agree with Firefly; the admins in question may have been slightly heavy-handed but I do not immediately see anything necessarily requiring a full case to sort out. Decline unless that changes. Primefac (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I largely agree with what SMcCandlish has written. However, I don't think any of the issues raised so far feel "ripe" for arbitration at this time and so I am leaning towards declining. I am waiting, however, for further community feedback before formalizing that vote. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Decline This does not strike me as appropriate for ArbCom at this time. This would have been better served by going to AN/ANI. There are two possibilities of what would have happened there. Either the community would agree with the admins, or the community would have disagreed with the admins and established a consensus that policies and guidelines apply in the way Thinker is claiming they do. And then if admins didn't respect that consensus it would be maybe be appropriate for ArbCom. I suspect based on the feedback offered here that if this had gone to a community noticeboard that consensus would have supported the admins. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline I don’t think any actions taken here were unreasonable or heavy handed. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse I warned Thinker for the exact issue in question https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CaptainEek&oldid=prev&diff=1176976838#Good_one._Lol Strictly speaking, I don't think we have to recuse for warnings. But given that I gave the warning in a content dispute about Noah's Ark about which I expressed an opinion, and given that my instinct is to ban him, that seems enough for recusal. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]