Revision as of 05:19, 2 July 2012 view sourceCartoonDiablo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,375 edits →Statement by CartoonDiablo← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:05, 2 July 2012 view source Chris Chittleborough (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers9,016 edits →Statement by {Party 3}: My statementNext edit → | ||
Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
This is a pure content dispute, no different than the arb request that was rejected months ago. The actual content that CartoonDiablo is concerned with keeping remains in the article, as we've found a way to incorporate it without using the highly partisan Media Matters, and significantly ''without'' CartoonDiablo's input at the talk page up to this point. There's nothing to really address here, IMO. ] (]) 01:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC) | This is a pure content dispute, no different than the arb request that was rejected months ago. The actual content that CartoonDiablo is concerned with keeping remains in the article, as we've found a way to incorporate it without using the highly partisan Media Matters, and significantly ''without'' CartoonDiablo's input at the talk page up to this point. There's nothing to really address here, IMO. ] (]) 01:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC) | ||
=== Statement by |
=== Statement by ] === | ||
As others have said, this is a content dispute. | |||
CartoonDiablo has (quite reasonably) raised this dispute at two noticeboards so far, NPOVN and DRN, without a conclusive result. I think the dispute is really about BLP and RS issues in combination, so it probably belongs at BLPN,<br> | |||
... or RSN,<br> | |||
... or both.<br> | |||
I suspect this dispute would already have been settled if it obviously belonged to just one noticeboard. | |||
(When I have time for non-trivial editing here, which won't be for many weeks, I'll raise this dispute one/both of those noticeboards, unless someone beats me to it.) | |||
Cheers, ] 06:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
=== Suggestion by Looie496 === | === Suggestion by Looie496 === |
Revision as of 06:05, 2 July 2012
Requests for arbitration
Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
---|---|---|---|
Thomas Sowell | 1 July 2012 | {{{votes}}} |
Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
---|---|---|---|
Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motionsMotion name | Date posted |
---|---|
Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
Shortcuts
About this page 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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
Thomas Sowell
Initiated by CartoonDiablo (talk) at 22:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Involved parties
- CartoonDiablo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Chris Chittleborough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- CWenger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- PokeHomsar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Thargor Orlando (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
Statement by CartoonDiablo
The argument is whether a source by Media Matters can be used on the page and whether consensus can be used to violate policy in favor of excluding it for POV reasons.
As the dispute resolution made clear:
- Acceptible Use MMfA is clearly an organization with a political slant. However, that does not mean that their opinion cannot be quoted in a Misplaced Pages article. Political-based articles routinely cite sources which have a political stance (e.g., NRA, PETA, NAACP). There have been at least 25 reliable source discussions about MMfA, and the general conclusion of the RS forums is that the organization cannot be used as a source of news, but that their opinion can be cited. The text cited above makes it clear that MMfA is a liberal organization, and that the comment in question is their opinion. The actual article comparing Obama's actions to Hitler's is referenced in Investor's Business Daily, which is a reliable source of news, and the paragraph also gives the opinion of two people supporting Sowell's publication of the article, thus ensuring the commentary is NPOV. Based on this, inclusion of MMfA is acceptible. Debbie W. 03:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comments about consensus Based on the article's talk page, the biggest problem that I see is a misunderstanding of consensus by both sides of the debate. I saw a number of comments on the talk page about consensus that were wrong. A few things about Misplaced Pages and consensus: (1) Consensus cannot trump Misplaced Pages policy; (2) Consensus regarding a particular topic cannot be determined by one of the participants of the discussion -- a neutral third party is needed; (3) Consensus can change over time -- a consensus from a year ago can be changed; (4) Misplaced Pages's "Don't revert solely due to non-consensus" disallows the use of "no consensus" as grounds for preventing change to an article. Debbie W. 03:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
However editors continue to exclude it for POV reasons (or no reason at all) (diff, diff) and continue to claim consensus as a reason for such exclusion. I hope that arbitration will solve this once and for all. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- To Looie496, that Arb request was premature because it predated the content dispute resolution. I mistakenly took the NPOV noticeboard as dispute resolution. Since then we have tried dispute resolution. To Thargor, the dispute resolution has been tried and failed which is why we're here. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Statement by Thargor Orlando
This is a pure content dispute, no different than the arb request that was rejected months ago. The actual content that CartoonDiablo is concerned with keeping remains in the article, as we've found a way to incorporate it without using the highly partisan Media Matters, and significantly without CartoonDiablo's input at the talk page up to this point. There's nothing to really address here, IMO. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Statement by Chris Chittleborough
As others have said, this is a content dispute.
CartoonDiablo has (quite reasonably) raised this dispute at two noticeboards so far, NPOVN and DRN, without a conclusive result. I think the dispute is really about BLP and RS issues in combination, so it probably belongs at BLPN,
... or RSN,
... or both.
I suspect this dispute would already have been settled if it obviously belonged to just one noticeboard.
(When I have time for non-trivial editing here, which won't be for many weeks, I'll raise this dispute one/both of those noticeboards, unless someone beats me to it.)
Cheers, CWC 06:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion by Looie496
It might be useful to explain explicitly why the reasons for declining a very similar request in May are no longer applicable. Looie496 (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/0/0)
- Decline Still a content dispute, so things that were said three months ago still apply. Courcelles 03:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)