Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical elections

Add links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut
Main case page (Talk) — Preliminary statements (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: HouseBlaster (Talk) & SilverLocust (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Guerillero (Talk) & Aoidh (Talk) & Z1720 (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Case opened on 23:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Case closed on 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Case information

Involved parties

Prior dispute resolution

None

Preliminary statements

Preliminary statements given in the case request stage may be found at /Preliminary statements.

Preliminary decision

Motion: Historical elections

Following a request for action based on evidence of alleged harassment and canvassing, the Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the topic area of historical elections. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:

  • The case title will be Historical elections.
  • The initial parties will be:
  • Guerillero will be the initial drafter
  • The case will progress at the usual time table, unless additional parties are added in which case the drafters may choose to extend the timeline.
  • All case pages are to be semi-protected.
  • Private evidence will be accepted. Any case submissions involving non-public information, including off-site accounts, should be directed to the Arbitration Committee by email to Arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Any links to the English Wikipedia submitted as part of private evidence will be aggregated and posted on the evidence page. Any private evidence that is used to support a proposal (a finding of fact or remedy) or is otherwise deemed relevant to the case will be provided to affected parties when possible (evidence of off-wiki harassment may not be shared). Affected parties will be given an opportunity to respond.

Enacted - HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 23:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

  1. Support in principle. I think Number 57 raises three excellent broad questions where we can definitely be of use. I'm mildly in favour of trimming the parties list to experienced editors only per my comment below, but that doesn't affect my support of opening the case. Maxim (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Primefac (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Z1720 (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Aoidh (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator views and discussions

Proposing --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've boldly changed the proposed case to "Historical elections", which solves the problem that we already have a case by basically that name, and also clarified that the scope is focused on completed elections, going quite far back in history, and not super focused on current elections. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And now, for a comment on the merits. This case is what another Arb intelligently described as "hybrid." There's not so much private information that we can't hear it in public. But there is so much private information that we can't hear it as fully public as we usually would. This case rather much reminds me of the WPTC case. For the moment, we're obviously being a bit coy about what the private parts are; but I do hope that we can lay them out a little more completely at some point. As for the on-wiki parts, that's where the public part of the case comes in. We're looking for indications of broader issues in the realm of articles on historical elections, including the on-wiki/off-wiki interface. If you're an editor in the election articles area, your thoughts, commentary, and feedback are welcome. If you have been named as a party, we want to hear that as well, but beware that you've probably been listed because you have been involved in a dispute in the elections area or are suspected of off-wiki misbehavior. As for the peanut gallery (i.e. you haven't edited in the historical election articles area but would still like to chime in), if you have comments about how the WPTC case did or didn't work well, or other suggestions for hybrid cases, this would be a good time to mention that so we can take those lessons to heart before we do another hybrid case. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The more I sat with my above message, I feel like it didn't quite do justice for describing the process, since this isn't how we usually do things. If you've been named as a party, I imagine that feels pretty scary. And I won't lie: yes, this could have repercussions to your editing career. At the end of the day, we ask for your honesty and cooperation. I would treat this as we usually would a case request at WP:ARC. We're not deciding the merits of the case here; we're just deciding if we need to take the case and do the whole nine yards of collecting evidence, workshopping, and proposing a decision. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The lack of commentary, including by the editors at issue here, makes me wonder if there is actually a significant public facing issue here. I'm not sure we ought drag the community through a hybrid case if there's nothing to be done of it in public. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Directly voting on blocks for some of the accounts named above may be more expedient. Primefac (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should Anonymousioss (51 edits) and BigCapt45 (29 edits) be formal parties? Even with evidence of their material involvement in the matter at hand, I'm not sure it's fair to designate editors with this little experience as parties. A talkpage message along the liens of "please review our policies and don't do this again" may be more appropriate (alternatively, a block if the conduct is egregious enough to warrant it). Maxim (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd support removing editors with few edits from the list of parties. If they need to be added back in, it can be done later. Z1720 (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a fan of adding parties later during the case, as this prolongs the case for everyone else and creates an imbalance in the amount of time people have had the chance to provide statements before the decision is made. It may lead to chaotic situations or perceived, perhaps actual, unfairness. So if parties are removed from the list, let's please keep them removed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Off-wiki communication

2) While discussion of Wikipedia and editing in channels outside of Wikipedia itself (such as IRC, mailing lists, or web forums) is unavoidable and generally appropriate, using external channels for coordination of activities that, on-wiki, would be inappropriate is also improper.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Presumption of coordination

3) When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in the same discussions to support the same point of view — especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in the underlying dispute — it is reasonable to presume that they could be coordinating their actions. Evaluation of consensus in particularly divisive or controversial cases needs to carefully weigh the possibility and avoid ascribing too much weight to the number of participants in a discussion — especially when policy enforcement or sanctions are considered.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Ownership of content

4) Wikipedia pages and topic areas do not have owners that control content or edits to them, inclusive of both individual editors and groups of enthusiasts about a topic. Instead, content is determined by the community at-large and governed by community consensus.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Consensus

5) Wikipedia relies on consensus as its fundamental editorial process. Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. To ensure transparency, consensus cannot be formed except on Wikipedia discussion pages. "Off-wiki" discussions, such as those taking place on other websites, on web forums, or on IRC, are not taken into account when determining consensus. Further, a consensus among a limited group of editors does not override wider community consensus.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring

6) Edit warring is disruptive and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Area of conflict

1) The area of conflict that this case centers on is the results of contemporary and historic elections and how they are displayed in tables, infoboxes, and prose on the English Wikipedia.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Election Twitter (background)

2) Election Twitter is a community of dedicated enthusiasts interested in the area of conflict that mostly communicates with each other on X. Some, but not all, of the regular posters also edit the English Wikipedia.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Election Twitter (ownership)

3) Actions by many participants in Election Twitter show a pattern of attempting to enforce ownership over the area of conflict.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Locus of the dispute

4) Beginning in 2023, several Wikipedia editors have made edits to historical election results that participants of Election Twitter disagree with. Since then, Election Twitter has responded to such edits in the area of conflict with rounds of harassment, canvasing of discussions, and group edit warring.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Talleyrand6

5) Talleyrand6 (talk · contribs) was blocked by Guerillero on 17 June 2024 for "Disruptive editing, edit warring, and off-site canvasing" related to the area of conflict. The block was assumed by the Arbitration Committee on 22 June.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Anonymousioss

6) Anonymousioss (talk · contribs) participated in off-site harassment and improper off-site coordination.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

CroatiaElects

7) CroatiaElects (talk · contribs) participated in improper off-site coordination.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

DemocraticLuntz

8) DemocraticLuntz (talk · contribs) participated in improper off-site coordination and edit warred at San Bernardino County, California.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Mcleanm302 (alternative finding)

9b) Mcleanm302 (talk · contribs) participated in off-site harassment and improper off-site coordination.

Passed 6 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Contentious topic (with sunset)

1.2) The results of any national or sub-national election are a Contentious Topic. Starting in 2026 and checked yearly afterwards, this designation expires on 1 January if no sanctions have been logged in the preceding 2 years.

Passed 5 to 3 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Election Twitter reminded

2) The regular posters on X who associate with Election Twitter are reminded that there is no ownership of articles on the English Wikipedia. They are encouraged to seek consensus on the article talk page, use dispute resolution when they encounter disagreements and refrain from off-site coordination.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Talleyrand6 (site ban)

3) The Arbitration Committee block of Talleyrand6 is converted to an indefinite ban from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Anonymousioss (topic ban)

4.2) Anonymousioss is topic banned from national and sub-national elections. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 7 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Anonymousioss (site ban)

4.3) Anonymousioss is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 5 to 3 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

CroatiaElects (topic ban)

5.2) CroatiaElects is topic banned from national and sub-national elections. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 7 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

CroatiaElects (site ban)

5.3) CroatiaElects is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 6 to 1 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

DemocraticLuntz (topic ban)

6.2) DemocraticLuntz is topic banned from national and sub-national elections. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 5 to 1 with 1 abstention at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Mcleanm302 (topic ban)

7.2) Mcleanm302 is topic banned from national and sub-national elections. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 6 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Mcleanm302 (site ban)

7.3) Mcleanm302 is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 6 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Enforcement log

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical_elections&oldid=1245574302"