Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 127: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:03, 30 June 2024

Revision as of 04:58, 12 July 2024

Line 353:

*It's fairly standard [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/832LT|meatpuppetry]] but being carried out on an Indian Army-wide basis. ArbCom intervention seems overkill. [[User:Cabayi|Cabayi]] ([[User talk:Cabayi|talk]]) 09:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

== Clarification request: Noleander ==

:'''''[[Special:Permalink/1233976842#Clarification_request:_Noleander|Original discussion]]'''''

{{Archive top|result=There is a rough consensus among participating arbs that there is no COI exemption to the principle asked about and that the principle remains true with current policies and guidelines. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 23:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC) }}

'''Initiated by''' [[User:Clovermoss|Clovermoss]] '''at''' 16:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

;Case or decision affected

:{{RFARlinks|Noleander}}

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''

*{{admin|Clovermoss}} (initiator)

*{{userlinks|ජපස}}

*{{userlinks|Hydrangeans}}

*{{userlinks|FyzixFighter}}

*{{admin|Awilley}}

*{{userlinks|Horse Eye's Back}}

*{{userlinks|Ghosts of Europa}}

*{{userlinks|Elinruby}}

*{{userlinks|Pbritti}}

*{{userlinks|Red-tailed hawk}}

*{{userlinks|HaeB}}

''Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''

<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83&diff=prev&oldid=1232416802]

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hydrangeans&diff=prev&oldid=1232417237]

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FyzixFighter&diff=prev&oldid=1232417482]

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Awilley&diff=prev&oldid=1232417621]

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Horse_Eye%27s_Back&diff=prev&oldid=1232417721]

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ghosts_of_Europa&diff=prev&oldid=1232417839]

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elinruby&diff=prev&oldid=1232512093]

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Red-tailed_hawk&diff=prev&oldid=1232512216]

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pbritti&diff=prev&oldid=1232512359]

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HaeB&diff=prev&oldid=1232512462]

=== Statement by Clovermoss ===

This case was recently linked in a disagreement over at [[Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Distinguishing characteristic of this church]]. Horse Eye's Back asked if an editor was a member of the church [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&diff=next&oldid=1232217857 here] and Hydrangeans linked to the above case [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&diff=next&oldid=1232232004 here]. Responses were [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&diff=next&oldid=1232238198][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&diff=next&oldid=1232315673]. I'm not trying to open a case request about LDS editing but simply clarify if [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&diff=next&oldid=1232408213 there is a COI exemption] under principle 9. I think COI concerns qualify as a legitimate purpose. But I also don't think that a person editing an article about their perceived religious beliefs is ''inherently'' a COI that needs to be disclosed per [[WP:EXTERNALREL]]. I think there needs to be a higher bar than "you're editing this article. Are you x?" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_268#Which_of_these_questions_should_we_deem_unacceptable?] Therefore I think there's some vagueness here that should be clarified.

: {{ping|Horse Eye's Back}} Can you provide a diff for your assertion here? I have the page on my watchlist and I did ''not'' see a comment like that by Awilley. It's possible I missed something while reading recent comments. I also ask that you refrain from saying stuff like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&diff=next&oldid=1232408213 this] because it can give other editors like me the false impression that you mean this more generally. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 18:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

:: Is it possible you mean this comment? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&diff=prev&oldid=1232125824] [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 19:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

This issue has broader implications in the community. I link to a discussion about that in my "are you x?" statement above. There, an editor said {{tq|They're all variations on the same theme: asking personal information under the guise of asking about COI}}. (I'll note that this is part of a comment made by [[User:Tryptofish]] and they've commented that they think this is a community issue below). I think it's important to clarify the threshold for when asking or stating that editors ''must'' disclose said information lies. I understand why editors are [[Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia|hesitant to restrict such questions]] but I also think there has to be a line somewhere. This principle would suggest there is. Given that there was an ANI discussion where this principle was mentioned in a completely different matter a few days ago, I think that it's going to be continued to be used by editors unless ArbCom decides to clarify this one way or another. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 00:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{tq|Clovermoss was not an involved party and consulted with exactly none of the involved parties}} is not strictly correct. I wrote a comment in that talk page discussion before that exchange happened. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&diff=prev&oldid=1231666744] I've also had that page on my watchlist for quite some time and occasionally participate in discussions there. I rarely edit LDS topics directly. As far as I can remember, this is the most substantial edit I have ever made to the article in question [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1120226261]. My interest is mostly explained by how the LDS share some similarities with [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] and more broadly, the [[Bible Student Movement]]. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 05:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

::Also the newly added parties by Horse Eye's Back makes this three recent disputes entirely unrelated to each other that have involved people mentioning this principle. I think clarification is a good idea. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 17:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

:::I'd also like to bring greater attention to the discussions that {{u|FyzixFighter}} linked that show the community has already discussed this to some extent. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 18:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by ජපස ===

I think that (a) religious faith is not disconfirming for editing material relevant to that faith tradition but (b) it is not ''not'' disconfirming either. For me, in an ideal world, Wikipedia would stick to these general principles:

#Wikipedians should be under no obligation to identify their faith tradition. There is no religious test for editing Wikipedia.

#Wikipedians should be allowed to ''ask'' whether another editor has a faith tradition without being accused of violating [[WP:NPA]]. To pretend that the religious faith of an editor is ''never'' relevant is just as problematic as arguing that it is ''always'' relevant.

#When an editor makes an edit that appears to another editor to violate general editorial principles of this website in favor of an approach preferencing a certain religious faith position, it should not be out-of-bounds in editorial discussion to make this point. Having an argument or edit criticized for such should not necessarily be considered a personal attack.

#To the extent that people feel like they may be subject to personal attack in these contexts, it would be helpful if they communicated this to the person that they feel attacked them. [[WP:CIVIL]]ity as a principle works best when people are honest about the impact of various statements on them rather than appealing to generalized standards that are not necessarily shared across the wide communities that Wikipedia encompasses.

I know that my position is likely the minority one, but I still maintain that this is a better system than the current [[Don't Ask, Don't Tell]]-like approaches others seem to favor.

[[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 17:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Hydrangeans ===

On whether religious background constitutes a COI requiring disclosure and therefore should be exempt from the expectation in [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#References_to_fellow_editors|principle 9 of ''Noleander'']], I'd point out [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Kaalakaa_on_Islam-related_topics|a recent ANI thread]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1232452685#Kaalakaa_on_Islam-related_topics permalink]; for transparency it was a thread I commented in) in which users described as disruptive behavior an editor acting on a belief that being Muslim constituted a conflict of interest with Islam (primarily in the context of how that editor assessed the independence of academically published authors, though [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=1231419284&oldid=1231414130 OP also brought up] that the editor implied Muslim users should be disregarded in discussions about Muslim topics) <small>(the editor was ultimately [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=1231890425&oldid=1231888903 topic banned from pages about Islam]; other reasons expressed included POV editing, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=1231531891&oldid=1231528813 ''Noleander'' was also cited])</small>. This suggests that considering religious affiliation a COI requiring disclosure, as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&diff=next&oldid=1232408213 Horse Eye's Back claims] ({{Tq|clarify your COI, if you are a member of this faith you do need to disclose that}}), isn't an interpretation broadly shared by the community and that some consider such an interpretation disruptive.

I'm inclined to {{u|Ghosts of Europa}}'s point that treating religious background (or racial or ethnic background for that matter, the other examples in ''Noleander'') as a COI, expecting it to be disclosed, and considering questions about such unproblematic has an unproductive chilling effect. [[WP:AGF|Whatever the intent]] behind such questioning, its outcome can result in circumventing the process of achieving consensus in discussions by focusing on participants' perceived backgrounds instead of [[WP:FOC|focusing on content]].

While ''Noleander'' recognizes the possibility that posing a reference or question could in {{tq|rare}} cases {{tq|clearly serve a legitimate purpose}}, it must do so clearly, and in most cases—including this case—it's possible, and more relevant, to focus on content, making personal questions about one's background unnecessary and inappropriate. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 22:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|My very best wishes}} {{tq|someone going to certain Church and paying their dues may fall under WP:COI per "Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI.". Being a member of a religious organization is not different from being a member of any other private or public organization, and as such can trigger WP:COI.}} I'd agree it's not necessarily different from being a member of other organizations but with the opposite conclusion. The quoted sentence from [[WP:COI]] is followed by a reminder that {{Tq|How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense.}} To consider affiliation a COI of concern to Wikipedia and therefore requiring disclosure would seem to imply that donating and/or newsletter-receiving members of political parties have a COI (and so users voting Democrat/Republican should disclose before editing [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]/[[Abraham Lincoln]]?), or that a user who pays the monthly unlimited ride fare for the [[MTA]] has a COI (and so shouldn't edit articles about New York subways?) <small>(with apologies for the US-centric examples)</small>.{{pb}}Even that train of thought aside, in the ANI threat I referenced, there were [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=1231438169&oldid=1231437945 editors] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=1231437945&oldid=1231437036 who] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=1231471623&oldid=1231471466 rejected] this thinking <small>(as aforementioned, mostly in the context of assessing sources, but COI as a user was also brought up; a user <nowiki>[</nowiki>linked at 'editors'<nowiki>]</nowiki> expressed belief that an employee of a mosque has a COI with that mosque but that being a practicing Muslim wasn't in itself an actionable COI with Islam)</small>. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 18:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by FyzixFighter ===

The question in general appears to me to be whether or not COI provides cover for asking for another editor's religious affiliation, contrary to principle 9 here. Such a question assumes that there is necessarily a contradiction between the two, and I would argue there is none. First, multiple discussions on [[WP:COIN]] and the policy talk page of [[WP:COI]] have agreed that membership in a religion does not rise to the level of a required disclosure of COI. See for example [[Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Updated proposed text for a shorter and clearer COI guideline]], [[Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 34#Religious COI]], [[Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 31#Clearer on religious background]], [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 190#Question about whether being a former member of a religion counts as a COI]]. I can find no instances where the community has said that being a member of a religion, current or former, is a reportable COI. Second, even if religious affiliation did require disclosure (and again there is no evidence the community considers this to be the case), the process for dealing with an undisclosed COI does not involve demanding or referencing the suspected religious background. Rather, per [[WP:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest]], the correct process is to ask the user on their talk page if they have an undisclosed COI relative to the article subject. If that fails to resolve the issue, the next step is to take it to [[WP:COIN]]. Just as there is no necessary contradiction between [[WP:OUTING]] and [[WP:COI]], there is no contradiction here.

With regards to this instance in particular, it has been noted in multiple places, including a [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1147#Horse Eye's Back's battleground behavior|ANI discussion]] earlier this year, that Horse Eye's Back's "interpretation of COI is way too expansive" than that defined in [[WP:COI]]. While Horse Eye's Back references COI, his description of the situation appears to be rather a concern of bias and advocacy. Most advocacy does not involve COI (such as, as noted previously, religious background), and is better addressed via [[WP:NPOVN]] instead of a discussion-chilling ultimatum that another editor self-OUT in the name of COI. Even if this did fall under COI, the proper process would have been to use Awilley's user talk page, ask if they had an undisclosed COI relative to the page (a simple yes/no question that does not require someone to self-OUT), and then go to COIN if there is additional question or concern. Horse Eye's Back is aware of this process and it has been pointed out to them multiple times previously. And yet, they continue to choose not to follow it. --[[User:FyzixFighter|FyzixFighter]] ([[User talk:FyzixFighter|talk]]) 01:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Awilley ===

I haven't had time to read the Noleander case or even the follow-up conversation on the LDS talk page. I saw that there was a content dispute there the other day over the 1st sentence, so I chipped in with my 2 cents.

What seems to have triggered this was my lighthearted reaction to the hypothetical Q&A about how we should be introducing readers to unfamiliar topics in the first sentence. So the '''Q's''' are what questions the reader might have, and the '''A's''' are how we might be trying to answer those questions in the first sentence. Horse's Eye Back had proposed the following Q&A:

*'''Q:''' What is LDS? {{pb}} '''A:''' It's a [[Christian denomination|church]].

*'''Q:''' What kind of church? {{pb}} '''A:''' The [[Mormon]] kind.

*'''Q:''' Oh, how is it different from other Mormon churches I've heard of? {{pb}} '''A:''' It's [[Nontrinitarian]].

I responded with:

<blockquote>@HEB: {{tq|"how is it different from other Mormon churches I've heard of?"}}...said nobody ever. The non-LDS Mormon churches account for some tiny fraction of a percent of Mormons. "Mormon Church" refers unambiguously to the LDS Church, which is why it shows up so early in the 1st sentence. And the other "Mormon churches" are also nontrinitarian, so your '''A''' to '''Q3''' is incorrect. The correct answer to '''Q3''' is that this Mormon church doesn't allow polygamy.</blockquote>

This is true. If you break down the sects that claim [[Joseph Smith]] as founder, you get the following:

{| class="wikitable"

|+ Caption text

|-

! Name !! Membership !! Notes

|-

| The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints || ~16,000,000 || The branch that followed Brigham Young to Utah

|-

| The Community of Christ || ~250,000 || Formed from the branches that did not follow Young to Utah

|-

| Scores of small Mormon Fundamentalist branches || ~40,000 || Offshoots from the Utah branch

|}

The Community of Christ (#2) does not fit into what we usually call "Mormonism". They never adopted the early "Mormon" tradition of polygamy, and because of the Utah polygamy, they did everything they could to distance themselves from that branch, including rejecting the name "Mormon". There are also doctrinal differences. (They're trinitarian, Mormonism is nontrinitarian. Mormons accept the Book of Mormon as scripture, CoC not so much.)

That leaves us with Group #1 and Group #3. Group #3 as a whole is universally referred to as "Mormon Fundamentalism". Many of these groups continue to practice polygamy. If styleguides mention these groups, they're usually telling us not to refer to these small branches as "the Mormon Church".

The TLDR is: the words "Mormon Church" unambiguously refer to the LDS Church, even though the LDS Church rejects that title. That's what you'll find in pretty much any source that uses the term (which many don't). And that was the point I was trying to make with my lighthearted comment above. You don't need to differentiate the 99.75% from the 0.25% in the first sentence.

I don't really understand why HEB immediately assumed that was "bigotry" or why they're still making such a big deal out of this comment. I was just going to ignore it and move on, but now that we're here, I hope my statement helps clarify the matter. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] <small>([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])</small></span> 21:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

:@[[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]]

:The Lead of [[Community of Christ]] (250,000 members, and by far the second largest group in the LDS Movement) says:

::{{tq|"While it generally rejects the term Mormon to describe its members, the church abides by a number of theological distinctions unusual outside Mormonism..."}}

:Brittanica is more direct:

::{{tq|"The Community of Christ does not accept the appellation Mormon because of the association with polygamy."}}

:which is basically what I said above.

:{{pb}}

:Our article on [[The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)]] (the largest afaict of the churches you linked, with 23,000 members) says:

::{{tq|"Although the church acknowledges the Book of Mormon to be scripture, it does not consider itself to be a "Mormon church" as it is distinct from the largest Latter Day Saint church, based in Utah."}}

:I'm not disputing anybody's "legitimacy as Mormons" as you put it. I'm following how reliable sources usually refer to them and how they refer to themselves. And nowhere did I express the opinion that the LDS Church was the one true anything. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] <small>([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])</small></span> 02:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Horse Eye's Back ===

* I am not familiar with the Noleander case but will briefly comment on what Clovermoss has said... What triggered the question was not that Awilley was editing the page but that they expressed the opinion that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the only true Mormon Church and that all other groups were either not real Mormons or fringe polygamists. Thats a very extreme position that is hard to explain any other way than personal beliefs, my intent was not to disqualify them from the conversation but get them to confront the apparent prejudice in their argument and if not the result of religious bigotry to provide sources supporting the assertion. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

::{{Reply|Clovermoss}} yes that is the primary diff although their comments about RLDS appear to span a good chunk of the discussion. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 19:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

::{{Reply|Awilley}} this seems to conviently gloss over a lot of groups that don't fit like [[The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)]], [[Church of Christ (Temple Lot)]], [[Restoration branches]], [[Church of Christ With the Elijah Message]], etc... It also overlooks that your chosen source (Bushman) calls it a branch of Mormonism, but you dispute their legitimacy as Mormons. This oversimplification/erasure is the POV I'm talking about, it makes The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seem like the only legitimate Mormon Church. Statements like "The Community of Christ (#2) does not fit into what '''we''' usually call "Mormonism"." do not dissuade me of the idea that there may be a COI at play here. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 23:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

::I have added this conversation [[Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#2021 Canadian church burnings]] and the related editors into the scope of the request as the dispute covers much the same ground, I brought this up on Clovermoss's talk page earlier, and Red-tail has since commented here. Relevent off-page diffs[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elinruby&diff=prev&oldid=1232510696][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Red-tailed_hawk&diff=prev&oldid=1232510271]. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 03:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

:::{{Reply|Red-tailed hawk}} to be fair none of this is standard... Clovermoss was not an involved party and consulted with exactly none of the involved parties before opening this request which is only tangentially related to the Arbcon case and for which there is no serious underlying dispute. They appear to have their own dog in the fight and have picked this case to take before Arbcon for reasons unknown... "Someone made a passing mention of this case in a discussion so lets file a formal request for clarification" isn't standard. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 05:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{Reply|Jclemens}} "Benefits need not necessarily be monetary, but they need be material (not spiritual or reputational) and to flow from the organization to the individual in order for a COI to exist." isn't true, non-material benefits absolutely count as COI[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK148588/] (if they didn't there wouldn't in general be a COI with friends and family). If I'm a hiring manager I have a conflict of interest when it comes to my son's employment application even if I would recieve only non-material benefits from him being hired. For a more international persepctive see [https://oag.parliament.nz/2020/conflicts/part3.htm#:~:text=A%20non%2Dfinancial%20conflict%20of%20interest%20might%20arise%2C%20for%20example,other%20sort%20of%20personal%20relationship.&text=Non%2Dfinancial%20conflicts%20can%20also,organisation%20outside%20of%20your%20work.]. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{Reply|Jclemens}} Reputational and religious considerations also come with indirect material benefits, but you said that those *don't* count as COI because there is no direct material benefit... In the literature religion clearly counts "These have been reviewed in an editorial by the PLoS Medicine editors (20) and include such issues as political, ideological or religious beliefs, personal friendships or enmity, academic favoritism or jealousy and personal ambition."[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2829174/] [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Ghosts of Europa ===

If we allow a COI exemption but define COI too broadly, I worry we'll create a chilling effect. It's one thing if you're employed as a priest. It's another if, like 1/8th of the world, you're a baptized Catholic who sometimes goes to church. Horse Eye's Back has said that even "belonging to a competitor" can be a COI.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&diff=prev&oldid=1232421928] Does this mean Muslims need to declare themselves when editing the page [[Catholic Church]]? Do secular humanists? There are countless reasons people may not be comfortable publicly disclosing their religious beliefs. This could scare away a lot of editors who might otherwise do great work. [[User:Ghosts of Europa|Ghosts of Europa]] ([[User talk:Ghosts of Europa|talk]]) 19:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Tryptofish (Noleander) ===

I'm old enough in Wiki-years that I actually participated in giving evidence in the Noleander case. Here, it's been noted that a Principle from that case came up in talk during the present dispute. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#References_to_fellow_editors That Principle] concerns the importance of not making "unnecessary references" to religious or other personal characteristics of other editors, distinguished from references that "clearly serve a legitimate purpose". It was arrived at in the context of an ArbCom case about alleged antisemitic content creation. I haven't followed the details of the present dispute, but I don't think the ArbCom case for which clarification is sought ever really dealt with COI issues (and thus, whether COI concerns do, or do not, "serve a legitimate purpose"). I think ArbCom can legitimately comment here that slurs or personal attacks against other editors (I'm not saying that such things occurred here) are impermissible, based on the [[WP:NPA]] policy and with or without ArbCom precedent. I'm inclined to think, however, that drawing the line between acceptable inquiries about COI, and unacceptable inquiries, is a community matter, rather than an ArbCom one. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Red-tailed hawk ===

My understanding is that editors are not required to disclose their religious affiliation when editing Wikipedia, and I think that Horse Eye's Back is plainly incorrect in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&diff=next&oldid=1232217857 this edit]. As [[WP:EXTERNALREL]] notes, {{tq|How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense}}. And—as common sense would dictate—merely being a rank-and-file member of the Mormon Church, or being a rank-and-file observant Jew, or being a rank-and-file member of more or less any mainstream religious community does not warrant cause for concern when participating in discussions on Wikipedia. It would be a terrible step for privacy if editors were required to post their religion publicly in order to make edits to Wikipedia's articles about religion, and our COI guideline plainly does not impose a general requirement to do so. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;_{[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]} 02:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

:I will note that, when people have disclosed their religion, there have been some editors (including at least one administrator) who have [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive347#c-Black_Kite-20220929140500-Comments_from_uninvolved_editors_(Laptop_controversy) argued] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive347#c-Black_Kite-20220929215400-Levivich-20220929181700 doubled down] that doing so categorically excludes them from closing discussions in the whole of (say) [[WP:AP2]]. Those who fear a chilling effect of being forced to disclose religion are more than justified by past community reactions to those who ''do'' disclose their religion, even among mere rank-and-file low-church Protestants (such as in that example). As sort of thing has flared up in multiple instances, and the community can't quite resolve it, I think it would be best for ArbCom to issue a statement and put its foot down on this sort of behavior. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;_{[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]} 03:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

:Separately, I will note that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=prev&oldid=1232512501 this addition] of parties after the request being opened by someone other than the person who opened the request is somewhat non-standard. In good faith, certainly, but non-standard. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;_{[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]} 04:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Elinruby ===

Hi. I have not been involved in this thread to date and am only vaguely aware of its history. I will be delighted to help the committee in any way, but until I have a better idea whether I am here over my remarks about {{u|Kaalakaa}}, the proper way of referring to the prophet Muhammed, or the genocide in residential schools, I think I will wait until someone asks me a question. Please ping. Based on a very fast skim, on the whole I tend to agree with jps, if that helps anyone somehow.

Also, committee members, please note that my email address currently does not work, so if someone answered me about my previously-submitted private evidence, I have not yet seen that. Nobody's fault but mine of course, so I guess I will go swap in a new email address pending any questions. Btw, Haeb seems to be trying to excuse himself based on his comments to HEB; since he has been hounding me about some of the above, if we are talking about those things here, then I think the <s>day</s> 15 hours<ref>starts [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elinruby&diff=prev&oldid=1231373515 heree] at 07:49 and ends [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elinruby&diff=prev&oldid=1231373515 here] at 22:44 after he again declined to state his business or accept an apology for whatever he is upset about</ref> he spent berating me for something or other is worthy of some scrutiny.

If the committee has not yet taken note of the private evidence, it went through the main Arbitration Committee link a couple-three days ago btw. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 06:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

*Since HEB has clarified that he added me to this request because of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#2021_Canadian_church_burnings this thread] I'd like to say that the Canadian residential school genocide should be designated a contentious topic. There is a false claim about the deaths of thousands of small children for a start, ([https://tnc.news/2023/08/31/rubensteingiesbrecht-canadas-hateful-indigenous-blood-libel/ Example, NSFW]) and people have been showing up with shovels in an effort to "prove" the conspiracy theory that there are no dead bodies. There are half a dozen current RSN threads, [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Online_publication_in_India_as_source_for_archaeological_findings_in_British_Columbia|notably this one]], and also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Aleteia][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Blacklock's_Reporter][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#offtopic_but_apparently_needed_discussion_moved_here_from_Catholic_Register_thread][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Dorchester_Review,_again][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Dorchester_Review_some_more][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_442#Western_Standard_as_a_source_for_Canadian_residential_schools][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_442#Catholic_Register_RS_for_Canadian_budget?][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sourceshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#True_North/][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_442#Noticeboard#The_Catholic_Pope_and_the_Canadian_House_of_Commons], an NPOV thread,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#2021_Canadian_church_burnings], an RfC [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_The_Dorchester_Review] and a topic ban,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_437#Using_Spiked_Online_regarding_genocide_of_First_Nations][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1159#Riposte97:_time_sink] not to mention the aspersions and inappropriate canvassing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board#Residential_school_related_edits here] by an editor I have actually admired, and whatever is going on in the current ANI thread titled "അദ്വൈതൻ now edit warring to insert sources which multiple editors have previously advised is unreliable". {{refn|The last character of that username will not display on my browser, so I can't link it}} That ANI thread is probably a better example of how religious beliefs can be disruptive to the point of becoming relevant in my opinion however, as well as the ANI thread about {{u|Kaalakaa}}, who thought it was ok to describe Muslims as "licking their lips like snakes",[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1159#Kaalakaa_on_Islam-related_topics] or {{u|UrielAcosta}}'s mass edits to change all references to the prophet Muhammed to say "the Islamic prophet Muhammed" because Muhammed was not, he said, *his* prophet.([[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#The_"prophet_Muhammad"_(lowercase_'p')|lowercase_'p']]) The private evidence I referred to earlier is relevant to the thread HEB is pointing to, btw, though as I understand the rules it is still private evidence and I should not go into that here, not in this paragraph at least. The issue does however go well beyond what church that editor attends, so it is in my opinion a bad example for the clarification being asked here. Please ping me if there are questions. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 19:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

'''Procedural question:''' {{u|Pbritti}}'ts behaviour continues even as he has been ignoring this thread. Should I write it up for ANI or, given the private evidence, should I file a case request? I am thinking that I may need to do that anyway for the CT designation, which I do think is needed. Can anyone provide any guidance on that? Or if there are still matters that need to be settled about this thread, maybe someone can get him to drop the stick at NORN until matters are a little more resolved. Any thoughts or suggestions appreciated. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 22:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

:::I am sorry but I am genuinely confused. If, to take a hypothetical, someone had been educated at one of the most militant madrasas in Iran then had taught military tactics to Hamas, and was recreationally editing wikipedia to say that Israeli does not deserve to exist, would this be something to bring up in the context of their edits? That the adamant refusal to listen seems unlikely to change given that a matter of faith is involved?

:::I am also confused about what I am doing here listening to people talk about asking editors about their religion since I never had any need to ask Pbritti about his religion -- he has a userbox on his user page, if his beliefs were not already blindingly obvious from his sources. I asked him to declare his COI and he angrily refused. He then said he doesn't edit the residential school topic because he is biased, he says, against that system. He does edit those articles. He reverts people in those articles, and re-inserts the same content over and over. And we all chant AGF as this goes into its third month.[[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 02:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

*{{ping|Guerillero}} thank you for the clarification. I was concerned that seeming to ignore the committee might come across as IDHT if it did not agree with my assessment that adding my issue to this request was an understandable error. I will be glad to do that, but since both {{u|Clovermoss}} and {{u|Horse Eye's Back}} are now attempting to address the residential school issue, I think I will wait to see if either of them makes any headway. But again, thank you for the clarity. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 01:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

{{talk-ref}}

=== Statement by My very best wishes ===

Someone having merely a personal religious ''belief'' is a bias, not WP:COI. However, someone going to certain Church and paying their dues may fall under [[WP:COI]] per "''Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI.''". Being a member of a religious ''organization'' is not different from being a member of any other private or public organization, and as such can trigger WP:COI. Therefore, asking if someone has an ''external relationship'' that could trigger a WP:COI is a legitimate question, not a discrimination. Still, it would be inappropriate to ask such a question just out of blue. That would be appropriate only if the behavior by a user indicates the presence of a significant COI that may negatively affect their editing. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 15:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

:@Hydrangeans. Yes, sure. WP:COI says it "can trigger", meaning it ''may or may not'' be the case of COI, depending on the context and specific circumstances. I think Barkeep49 has clarified this well. Could one participant politely ask another about a potential COI ''if appropriate'' (see above) and without making it a "personal attack"? Yes, one definitely can. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 18:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

::Speaking on the Noleander case, it tells about ''"unnecessary references to the actual or perceived racial, religious, or ethnic background of fellow editors"'' and so on. Yes, absolutely. Merely a ''background'' of someone, and especially the ethnic one, is not COI. But a membership in an organization, a religious or nationalistic one, can be. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 21:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

:@Jclemens. I am talking not about making voluntarily donations, but about being an official and faithful member of an organization that can be political, religious or other, such as [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union|Communist Party]], [[Bruderhof Communities]], [[Mormons]], etc. That involves following certain set of rules, ideologies, and may include paying membership dues that are not necessarily voluntarily. Most importantly, this frequently includes ''faithfully serving the organization'' which can create a COI. This is not necessarily a priest or a [[commissar]], this can be a rank and file member who faithfully promotes propaganda by the corresponding organization. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 00:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

:In other words, personal beliefs are just a bias, but [[religious institution]]s are external organizations, relationships with whom can trigger COI, or at least this is my understanding of this policy. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 01:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

::A COI and the relationship can be non-financial [https://research.hsr.it/en/research-integrity/non-financial-conflicts-of-interest.html]. Someone can push an institutional or personal agenda because of institutional loyalty, institutional indoctrination, etc. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 03:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Jclemens (Noleander) ===

{{U|My very best wishes}}, this is entirely and totally backwards: {{tq|However, someone going to certain Church and paying their dues may fall under WP:COI ...}}. No, being an employee of or ''receiving'' dues, donations, tithes, fees for auditing, etc. is what triggers a COI. This is true for any other nonprofit, and probably also true for any other (e.g., commercial) organization that accepts money, but I haven't though that through enough to state that definitively. Giving money to an organization doesn't make one an owner, doesn't give one a financial stake in the outcome. It's less connected to the outcome of an organization than, say, sports betting is on the team or individual competitor in question: those are only problems when someone is betting on something they can personally influence. As you said right before your statement to which I take exception, {{tq|Someone having merely a personal religious belief is a bias, not WP:COI.}} [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 22:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{U|My very best wishes}}, thank you for your clarification, but I do not recognize the distinction you make as representing a valid COI in any usual or customary sense. COI is if the organization benefits me, not if I benefit the organization. Benefits need not necessarily be monetary, but they need be material (not spiritual or reputational) and to flow from the organization to the individual in order for a COI to exist. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 02:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

:@HEB, what you cite with respect to family members are indirect material benefits: while it might not be obligatory that your son will care for you in your old age, it is a foreseeable, socially expected outcome. What Viswanathan et al. (2013) are talking about is either bias or financial COI: anyone in academia will tell you that taking an unpopular position on a controversial topic will make future grant funding vanish. Religious or philosophical beliefs cannot be put on a balance sheet, even a highly speculative one. They can be absolutely real to people (see e.g. Rodney Stark on an economy of religion) and influence decisions but are more properly termed bias (=beliefs) rather than COI (=mercenary). [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 19:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Zanahary ===

It seems the arguments in defense of the right to ask questions about an editor’s demography or associations in content disputes assume that it is useful to try and figure out why an editor, besides their stated rationale, might believe what they are saying. In other words, that it can be useful to figure out where an editor’s bias comes from.

This approach favors arguing with people rather than arguing for outcomes, and I don’t think it serves the encyclopedia well. It shouldn’t matter in a content dispute whether an editor’s apparent position can be explained by bias predictably related to their religious affiliation, their race, their country of origin, or their political alignment. Content disputes are about content, not the figures at play in its editing, and arguments about forces potentially influencing an editor’s perceptions, which in turn influence their position in the dispute, are personal arguments. Personal arguments should be avoided altogether, and there should certainly be no sacrifices made to protect their continued existence (consider the short bridge to personal attacks, and the necessarily discriminatory basis for making judgments of editors that take into account their religion, race, sex, nationality, and so on).

As for whether belonging to a church qualifies as a COI, I say certainly not, and there’s no reason why an interpretation of the COI policy that includes religious alignment wouldn’t also include an editor’s race, personal beliefs, place of origin, sexual orientation, et cetera.

Basically: questions about association and demography belong to disputes between editors, not disputes about content, and I urge the Committee not to protect the right to pursue personal disputes (which don’t serve the project) at the expense of the right to have one’s edits be interpreted free of personal and demographic baggage. And belonging to a church is not a COI. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 22:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Newyorkbrad ===

As an arbitrator I drafted most of the decision in the ''Noleander'' case, which it's hard for me to believe was 13 years ago. I think the principles I drafted stand up well to rereading at this late date; but as I just pointed out in another section of this page, there is a limit to how much any discussion of current policy should be steered by a general principle contained in a wiki-ancient arbitration decision which, like any ArbCom decision, was written in the context of a particular set of facts.

That being said, those who flatter me by seeking guidance from principles contained in old ArbCom decisions that I drafted in my past wiki-life might also enjoy [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/International Churches of Christ#Conflict of interest]], although the relevant policies have evolved somewhat since that time (as has the threshold of disruption necessary to trigger an ArbCom case to begin with, but I digress).

An editor's membership in a given religious group or adherence to particular religious beliefs, nor the lack of such membership or beliefs, does not give rise to a "conflict of interest" that must be disclosed or should generally be inquired about. In this context, non-neutral, biased, or otherwise disruptive editing can almost always be addressed on its own merits without asking intrusive questions about editors' personal attributes or beliefs. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 14:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by {other-editor} ===

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

=== Noleander: Clerk notes ===

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

*

=== Noleander: Arbitrator views and discussion ===

*So I have opinions on this issue. What I am considering is whether or not this is the right forum to seek opinions and whether or not I should be offering my opinions as an arbitrator. It feels to me that we're primarily being asked to interpret policy. While we regularly interpet policy it is in service of one of our other duties and responsibilities, most often as part of acting {{tqq|as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve}}; this seems to reverse those things. The "hook" for us to interpret policy here is instead a principle which hasn't been used since 2011. I'm not sure that's a strong enough hook - especially given the way many other principles have extended lives either in future arbcom cases or because the community decides to add the interpretation into policy itself (e.g. [[WP:LOCALCON]]). I think a more interesting case could be made that that we're actually needed in our role as something the community has been unable to resolve, but I don't know that case has been proven/tried here either. TLDR: I'm reading this case and pondering what is appropriate for me to respond with. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 00:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

*:I'm not 100% convinved we have jurisidiction here. A major factor towards finding this is an appropriate forum is, for me, this year's COI case (more than the exact case (correctly) listed here for clarification) with there not being some superior community place to resolve it and we're already here with lots of community feedback as contributing factors. So I am convinced enough to respond substantively.

*:It is possible to ask about certain characteristics of an editor including, but not limited to, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, and, crucially for the question at hand, religion without that question being a personal attack. It is also possible, as [[WP:NPA|no personal attacks]] notes itself, for such questions to ''be'' personal attacks. As such a judgement will need to be made based on the substance and context in order to decide if something is a personal attack. Further, the community has decided there are times when asking such questions is inappropriate and might otherwise be a behavioral issue of a kind other than being a personal attack (e.g. asking certain questions at RFA). There is also evidence that the community finds allegations that someone cannot edit an article solely because of personal characteristics such as religion to itself be a conduct issue that can be met with sanctions.

*:In terms of the specific discussion here, I think it important to remember, per the [[WP:5P|5 principles]], that we are here to write an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view. Our COI guideline is a safeguard the community has wisely erected to achieve that goal. Nothing from my casual read of the conversation suggests any inappropriate bias on the content side from any of the editors trying to find consensus about how to describe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As with anything we need editors interested enough in the topic to do the work and discussion required, but dispassionate enough about the topic to achieve a neutral point of view. It's entirely possible that a religious adherent will do that and also possible that they will not. Again the context and substance will matter. I will also note that many religions have people who are biased against that religion or even prejudiced towards its adherents. Such people will have their own challenges to writing a neutral verifiable encyclopedia and may be quite prone to causing conduct issues when interacting with practitioners of that religion.

*:I hope that answers the question - admittedly with an answer that is going to be context sensitive rather than absolute which is also what the principle says - because I do see conduct both in that discussion and at this noticeboard that would have caused me to warn the offending party/parties had I found it as an uninvolved administrator rather than as an arbitrator in a request that is a request for clarification. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 15:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

*I largely agree with Barkeep49. I would also argue that by and large it does not necessarily matter if User X belongs to Group Y; looking at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Remedies_for_biased_editing|Principle 8]] of the same case, if said user is displaying repeated bias or prejudice in a topic area restrictions may need to be imposed, regardless of the underlying reason for those alleged biases. ''In general'', though, asking if someone belongs to a group simply because they express a strong opinion or seem to have more knowledge than a casual editor is likely to be unnecessary and potentially inappropriate. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 18:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

*One can be biased (both for and against a topic) without having a COI ([[WP:COINOTBIAS]]) and the way [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]] is currently written is that external relationships like religious affiliation ''can'' trigger a COI but are not ''prima facie'' conflicts of interest in and of themselves ([[WP:EXTERNALREL]]). The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#References to fellow editors|Noleander case principle]] from thirteen years ago is not out of line with [[WP:COI]], and if the intention behind COI itself needs to change it is not ArbCom that should be attempting to do so. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 20:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

* I am alarmed by the rise in religious bigotry on Wikipedia over the past few months. Part of this trend is the insistence by a small group of vocal editors that people reveal their religion as a way of winning content disputes. It is wrong and it needs to stop. --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] ^{[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]} 14:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

*:@[[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]]: The middle of a thread about another topic is not the place for new dispute resolution. Please take your complaints to either the community at a notice board or to the committee at [[WP:ARC]] -- [[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] ^{[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]} 20:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

*I agree with Aoidh and Guerillero. I want to emphasise that users should never ask for identifying information of other users, including their religion. Instead, the question they can ask others is, "Do you have a [[WP:COI]] with this topic?" It is also important to emphasise that, under current Wikipedia policy, an editor with a COI on a topic is allowed to edit articles in which they have a COI with, as long as they have disclosed any contributions covered under [[WP:PAID]] and they adhere to Wikipedia's policies and procedures, including having a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] in their contributions. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 16:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}