Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Comment by Sweet6970 arising from the cases of Void if removed and Colin

I am making this comment on the Talk page because it is not directly part of either the cases on Void if removed or Colin. But since I am involved as the person against whom the comment was addressed, I feel I ought to comment.

@Raladic: I saw your original comment to me: promoting transphobic views as protected in a country condemned by the Council of Europe[1] isn't the flex you think it is and Wikipedia is not the platform to promote it. [1] I deny this accusation, which is unspecific and evidence-free. I did not respond at the time because you subsequently changed the wording of your response to me, but you have never explained your bizarre accusation against me, nor apologised for it. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)  

I didn't make an accusation against you, or at least didn't mean to, which is also why I pre-emptively reworded it to the live comment a few minutes after I wrote the initial response, to ensure it wasn't perceived as such after re-reading the initial comment, which I felt could be misinterpreted wrongly - which is basically what appears you are saying here, hence I reworded it pre-emptively to ensure that no such misinterpretation occurs and we can continue to edit civilly, even if we may disagree on certain topics.

The comment I made, was specifically directed at this part of your statement: ...In fact, ‘gender critical’ views are protected in the UK under the Equality Act 2010, and several people have successfully made legal claims for discrimination on the grounds of this philosophical belief.

My reply to you, and more precisely, the reworded (to avoid above said potential misinterpretation) live comment I made in response to your statement of the fact that such views such philosophical beliefs are protected in the UK (which I don't dispute), but as my comment explained - @Sweet6970, Wikipedia has a higher standard against the WP:PROMOTION of hateful transphobic views than the UK (see WP:HID/WP:NQP)., which is a simple true statement. On Wikipedia, editors are free to not be barred from editing while potentially holding such beliefs, as long as they don't affect their editing. But the line that we draw on Wikipedia is expressing such views, which are not protected on Wikipedia, as they run afoul of our civil editing policies, with the linked essays on why hate is disruptive (HID) and the more topic specific NQP essay explaining this.

So I do apologize to you that my pre-reworded statement may have been subject to misinterpretation, as it wasn't directed at you personally, but at the fact that the protection of such views in the UK deviate from the protection of such views on Wikipedia, but also that I didn't intend any misinterpretation, which is why I reworded it myself a few minutes after to the live statement to ensure we can all edit civilly on this contentious topic area. Raladic (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

to Raladic: Thank you for your explanation and apology (though I do not agree with your comments about a ‘higher standard’ etc). If it is technically possible, and procedurally permissible, I would like you to strike your original comment. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

That discussion is closed, so it should not be edited from a technical standpoint. The live comment in the closed section is not factually incorrect, but I will concede to you that I could have used a less strong word and used "different standard" instead of "higher", so please consider it understood as that we have "a different standard on Wikipedia..." :) Raladic (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Can I just point out that only gender-critical philosophical beliefs (i.e. that sex is immutable), not opinions or views, were ruled to be protected under EA2010. Transphobic views are absolutely not protected - part of the ruling said "(this) does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can misgender trans persons with impunity” and noted that acts of discrimination against trans people are also prohibited by the Equality Act. Black Kite (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that helpful clarification, so I guess technically even in the UK, those views are not actually protected, which helps refute it in the future, just the philosophical belief as you quoted might be. I have struck and used your quote of philosophical beliefs to address the point I was trying to make. Raladic (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Could someone copy over an appeal

It's going to be some time before I'm able to access a computer with a keyboard, so I would be exceedingly appreciative if someone could copy over this appeal and handle all the templates. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem, I copied it over, hope I did it correctly. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. If it's messed up I'm sure someone will fix it, but it doesn't look messed up at a glance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

John McEntee (political aide)

A new editor, Martian Manhunter 1776 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been, in my opinion, whitewashing the article on McEntee. He made a bunch of edits I thought were wrong, I reverted him. I informed him the article was a contentious topic [2]. He carried on. I just reverted him again. Do with this what you will.Dan Murphy (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks like there were no edits after the notification. I've watchlisted the page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Dan Murphy, pinging because I moved this section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed them and their sock. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Background to POV-pushing AE cases

While there is an ARCA request that these may be in the scope of, I'm opening enforcement requests here for three reasons:

• It remains unclear whether the ARCA request will turn into a case, and even if it does due to the length of time it has taken I will no longer be available to participate. (If a case does proceed with me as a party, I will provide details to ArbCom to demonstrate that it is not ANI flu)
• One of the editors is not being considered as a party for that case
• I believe the evidence here is sufficiently straightforward that AE may be able to deal with it; if they can, that should simplify any potential ArbCom case

BilledMammal (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Admin input

Something that has been on my mind for quite a while is that other than the shit show I've just started there's no way for admins working arbitration enforcement to get input from other admins without either discussing off-wiki or starting this kind of clusterfuck. While there are some admins that I chat with off-wiki that leads to a selection bias, and still provides a narrow point of view. I've boiled my noodle off and on for months about this, and I can't come up with a solution that doesn't pose it's own issues.

Looking for input in a public forum leads to exactly what we're seeing now, but at least there's transparency. It doesn't make it easy for admins to have frank discussions about behavior and interpretations. It also turns into yet another forum for people to argue.

A limited access mailing list is one way, but having a big admin-only off-wiki mailing list isn't going to make anyone more comfortable with admins and would be vulnerable to leaks. An IRC or discord channel has the same issue. Might as well just throw on a robe and start a cabal.

I don't know if there's any solution, or if the way it is now it's the best we can do with our system. I just figured I'd share some of my thoughts and see what others think. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The simple solution would be to have discussions initiated by admins in their role as an uninvolved admin be designated as "admin-only", with the only regular editors being allowed to contribute being those whose behavior is being discussed. BilledMammal (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)