Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions
→Statement by {Non-party}: +, would decline |
Austronesier (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
=== Statement by GhostOfDanGurney === |
=== Statement by GhostOfDanGurney === |
||
Seconding Deepfriedokra that this feels more like an [[WP:ANI|ANI]] request rather than an ARBCOM filing. The community can definitely still handle this. ―<span style="background:#368ec9;border:solid 2px;border-radius:5px"> '''''[[User_talk:GhostOfDanGurney|<span style="color:white">"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)</span>]]''''' </span> 14:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
Seconding Deepfriedokra that this feels more like an [[WP:ANI|ANI]] request rather than an ARBCOM filing. The community can definitely still handle this. ―<span style="background:#368ec9;border:solid 2px;border-radius:5px"> '''''[[User_talk:GhostOfDanGurney|<span style="color:white">"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)</span>]]''''' </span> 14:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
||
=== 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: |
|||
@{{u|Crash48}}'s latest diff from 13 Nov[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1184914742&oldid=1182831148] 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 {{tq|"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 @{{u|Rsk6400}}'s revert makes this report look like a [[WP:BOOMERANG]] to me. |
|||
The only problematic part on @Rsk6400's part is 2RR:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukrainian_language&diff=prev&oldid=1184933670][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukrainian_language&diff=prev&oldid=1184920625]. Multiple reverts never solve a problem in a contentious topic area. –[[User:Austronesier|Austronesier]] ([[User talk:Austronesier|talk]]) 14:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by {Non-party} === |
=== Statement by {Non-party} === |
||
Revision as of 14:51, 15 November 2023
Requests for arbitration
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ukrainian language | 15 November 2023 | 0/0/0 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) | Motion | none | 26 July 2024 |
| Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) | none | none | 17 August 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. This page is for statements, not discussion.
|
Ukrainian language
Initiated by Crash48 (talk) at 13:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Proposed parties
- Crash48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Rsk6400 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Talk:Ukrainian language#Little Russian language
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&diff=prev&oldid=1176410679
- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 107#Talk:Ukrainian language#Little Russian language
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.
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).
- This feels mostly like a content dispute, which needs WP:dispute resolution . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 <0/0/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)