Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ToosieJoosie (talk | contribs) at 23:36, 17 November 2023. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.

Shortcut

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Ukrainian language   15 November 2023 0/8/0
Both articles Afro Tech + Afro - prolonged edit disputes & Constant block motions against me Motions 17 November 2023 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Yasuke 13 Nov 2024

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Ukrainian language

Initiated by Crash48 (talk) at 13:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Crash48

In September 2023, I added into Ukrainian language 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".[1] 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 Wikipedia article.

In a discussion that followed, User:Mzajac 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, [citing its 19th-century usage] 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 WP:RGW that I took this case to WP:NPOV/N. The only new participant from the noticeboard, User:Dege31, supported mentioning Little Russian in the article as the historic name of the language. Rsk6400 agreed to mentioning Little Russian as long as a "context" is added.

On Sep 22nd, Rsk6400 added a "context" to the article to his satisfaction. On Oct 29th, I pinged 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 reinstated the references on Nov 13th, to be promptly reverted 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.

@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

@Crash48: This probably needs to be hashed out at WP:ANI instead of here, and I note that this falls into Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Balkans or Eastern Europe, where ArbCom has already adopted a special set of rules. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

This feels mostly like a content dispute, which needs WP:dispute resolution . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GhostOfDanGurney

Seconding Deepfriedokra that this feels more like an ANI request rather than an ARBCOM filing. The community can definitely still handle this. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Austronesier

I have witnessed the discussion in Ukranian language for a while, but have remained silent so far. Trigered by this (IMO frivolous) report, here's my 2 pennies on the matter:

@Crash48's latest diff from 13 Nov[2] is WP:OR 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 WP:undue weight; 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 "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 WP:verifiability, 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 @Rsk6400's revert makes this report look like a WP:BOOMERANG to me.

The only problematic part on @Rsk6400's part is 2RR:[3][4]. Multiple reverts never solve a problem in a contentious topic area. –Austronesier (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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 civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. 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 the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. 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? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2023 (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.

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>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Both articles Afro Tech + Afro - prolonged edit disputes & Constant block motions against me

Initiated by ToosieJoosie (talk) at 23:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • [diff of notification Solidest]
  • [diff of notification AirshipJungleman29]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=1185623520"