| Revision as of 01:14, 2 July 2009 view sourceDronkle (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers12,793 editsm →Statement by Peter cohen: fix format← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024 view source MJL (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors42,351 edits →Sabotage of Lindy Li's page: removing case as premature: declinedTag: Manual revert | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:ARC|a guide on talk page archiving|H:ARC}} | |||
| <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{-}} | |||
| = <includeonly>]</includeonly> = | |||
| </noinclude> | |||
| <includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for arbitration}}}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{NOINDEX}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}} | |||
| <noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude> | |||
| == Use of "disputed territories", "occupied territories" and related terminology in the context of the Arab-Israeli dispute == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 12:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{userlinks|Peter cohen}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{userlinks|username2}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|username3}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|username4}} | |||
| <!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. --> | |||
| ;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. --> | |||
| * Diff. 1 | |||
| * Diff. 2 | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| <!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration --> | |||
| *] This is an attempted proposal via IPCOLL where unfortunagtely only two other editors have joined the discussion. | |||
| *] Attempted RFC in one article which generated suggestions during when open of violations of ], ] and ] and a subsequent complaint against the appropriateness of the closing admin. (I also have issues with the conclusion, but will not raise content issues here.) | |||
| === Statement by Peter cohen === | |||
| There is a roving content dispute on the use of terminology regarding the ]. I have identified 20 threads spread over ten article talk pages where this or related terminology has been disputed this year. There are many older discussions too. ( contains a high proportion of valid hits.) | |||
| I have previously started a thread at ] to initiate a central discussion on the terminology but the level of participation there has been less than in several of the threads elsewhere. Although there is no currently unaddressed conduct issue in this area, the history of problematic behaviour over similar terminology is such that it is highly likely that things will reach a level where Arbcom intervention will be necessary at some point in the future. Further the related RfC at ] generated various accusations and suggestions of misconduct. I am therefore requesting that Arbcom take pre-emptive action and mandate that a centralised solution be created to the content issue along the lines of those being reached regarding the naming of Ireland articles and the use of "Judea and Samaria" etc. | |||
| Discussion pages where the "disputed" v "occupied" or related terminology has been discussed this year include: | |||
| *], first post 19:38, 1 January 2009, last post 22:56, 24 January 2009 | |||
| *], first post 08:35, 27 January 2008, last post 04:32, 17 February 2009 | |||
| *] first post 14:01, 20 February 2009 , last post 03:25, 21 February 2009 | |||
| *], first post 21:20, 13 January 2009, last post 07:47, 27 February 2009 | |||
| *], first post 04:15, 9 March 2009, last post | |||
| *], first post 06:09, 18 April 2009, last post 05:45, 20 April 2009 | |||
| *], first post 17:37, 19 April 2009, last post 09:57, 20 April 2009 | |||
| *], first post 18:24, 15 May 2009, last post 19:42, 15 May 2009 | |||
| *], first post 25 February 2009, last post 19:23, 24 May 2009 | |||
| *], first post 04:42, 27 March 2009, last post 15:59, 4 June 2009 | |||
| *], first post 07:40, 26 May 2009, last post 16:27, 7 June 2009 | |||
| *], first post 04:05, 25 May 2009, last post 03:56, 8 June 2009 | |||
| * ], first post 15:59, 10 June 2009, last post 18:40, 14 June 2009 | |||
| *], first post 19:15, 14 June 2009, last post 07:14, 23 June 2009 | |||
| *], first post 08:13, 23 June 2009, last post 16:47, 23 June 2009 | |||
| *], first post 08:51, 23 June 2009, last post 01:02, 25 June 2009 | |||
| *], first post 12:47, 24 June 2009, last post 08:18, 25 June 2009 | |||
| *], first post 02:44, 26 June 2009 , last post 13:52, 26 June 2009 | |||
| *], first post 17:55, 19 June 2009, last post 15:35, 28 June 2009 | |||
| *] first post 20:42, 1 July 2009, last post | |||
| --] (]) 15:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC), most recent post 00:15, 2 July 2009 | |||
| As requested below, I have now made a formatted list sorted by last edit and have also added a brand new entry which ahs appeared wince this request was opened.--] (]) 00:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by {Party 2} === | |||
| === Statement by {Party 3} === | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.'' | |||
| === Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/1/2) === | |||
| *'''Comment''' I am leaning towards accepting this case, although wondered whether amending the previous West Bank/J&S case would be more helpful to facilitate finding a solution to the naming of the Golan Heights, which is technically not covered by the former case. To clarify, Peter Cohen a couple of days ago for my opinion, and upon looking at the recent ] was struck by its lack of clarity and structure compared with the soon-to-close ]. Given there has now been a RfC on the Golan Heights, I suspect this is the port of final call (?) '''Addendum''', depending on other arbs' views on the situation thus far, another outcome might be a ''motion'' for one or more neutral admins to chair a new and structured Request for Comment on the disputed naming guidelines on the Golan Heights within a two month time-frame. ] (] '''·''' ]) 14:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Recuse'''. ] (]) 14:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Query'''. I clicked on two of those discussions mentioned by Peter, and they were concluded prior to (or as a consequence of) the W&S case closing. I think it would be important to understand how many of those discussions mentioned by Peter occurred after the W&S case, and post W&S discussions are the ones we would want to review more closely. A chronological list, or table with start and end of the threads, would be very helpful. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 15:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == DreamHost == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 03:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{admin|SarekOfVulcan}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{userlinks|Scjessey}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Judas278}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|194x144x90x118}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Theserialcomma}} | |||
| ;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. --> | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| <!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration --> | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| === Statement by SarekOfVulcan === | |||
| The article on web hosting company {{article|DreamHost}} is hopelessly deadlocked between satisfied customers SarekOfVulcan and Scjessey, and ex-customer Judas278 and non-customer 194x144x90x118. Judas and 194x treat any positive information about the company as advertising or a conflict of interest on Sarek and Scjessey's parts. This has resulted in the article being fully protected for most of the past two months, first by SarekOfVulcan and almost immediately after expiration by PhilKnight, the informal mediator. Suggestions for new edits are met with claims of . Information such as the names of the founders of the company and that they met in college is challenged as . Civility has occasionally (or frequently) gone out the window on . Reducing the archive period from 90 days to 45 days was decried as , even though it reduced the talk page from to . There were allegations that Sarek misused his admin bit by . | |||
| It <s>is currently undergoing</s>just underwent an AfD at ] that <s>seems quite likely to end</s>was closed as keep. | |||
| I have not filed an RFC/U, because there isn't just one editor with issues here, and I think it's fairer to subject all involved parties to scrutiny. | |||
| *Please note 194x's : "Beautiful man, you're a goner."--] (]) 12:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Added Theserialcomma as an involved party, since he's a long-term editor, and just {{diff|Talk:DreamHost|prev|299781847|made an edit}} showing the same problems I mentioned above.--] (]) 23:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ;Response to arbitrator Risker: | |||
| *Actually, I don't think this is a content dispute, because the disputes have been spread over every part of the article and talk page. It seems clear to me that it's a user conduct issue -- I'm just not sure whose conduct is the problem.--] (]) 13:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Jehochman === | |||
| I've been watching {{user|194x144x90x118}} for a while. Something appears to be not right. Their is way too knowledgeable (and snarky) for them to be a new user. I suggest checkuser. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the user previously edited as an unregistered account from that IP address, see {{ipuser|194.144.90.118}}. ] 13:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **Did you check for the involvement of other accounts, or is it just the named account and the IP? I am not sure why this editor has been somewhat caustic from the start. 194, can you say whether somebody mistreated you at some point in your history here? ] <sup>]</sup> 03:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Upon quick review it seems that 194 was on the wrong end of a bad sock puppetry permablock. That would tend to make a user feel grumpy. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not keen to preempt the Committee, but it might be useful for these matters to be reviewed at ] or ]. This is the sort of case that those boards routinely process. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Judas278 === | |||
| I welcome any productive steps. I am not familiar enough with the options to have an opinion on the best route. I believe significant limitation of Scjessey's participation is appropriate. In summary, , “Simon, please take another look at WP:OWN. You're way too close to this article to look at it objectively” was excellent advice, which unfortunately has not been followed. | |||
| I do not treat “any positive information” as advertising or COI. I do object to pro-company editors removing well-sourced negative information while adding positive information without using similar standards, or by claiming “non-controversial” exceptions. I am an ex-customer, not a fan, and I previously observed the development of this article. I began editing the article when I saw the COI, NPOV and SELFPUB tags being removed, without significant changes in the article to justify removal. Example: I suggested , covering “ceph”, but did not know of sources for it. | |||
| Scjessey is much more than a “satisfied customer.” Without listing details, several different editors have said his editing at DreamHost appears biased by pro-DreamHost COI. Also, he is creator of an off-wiki web site intended to influence or discourage participation, including at Misplaced Pages, by “outing” personal information and user name(s). This information was provided privately to Philknight and is available privately on request. | |||
| Civility: No question Scjessey regularly “welcomed” new editors at DreamHost with prompt, un-discussed edit reverts and accusations of bad faith. The recent Restrictions as a result of his participation in the Obama articles seems to confirm that problems at DreamHost are not an isolated incident. In my opinion, his talk page activity appears largely argumentative and drives away other editors, rather than working to compromise or consensus. I think 194x got off to a “bad” start on this article because s/he stepped into a bad atmosphere, and the Talk page was soon also semi-blocked as a result, forcing him to register. On the whole I think s/he's been a somewhat moderating influence at DreamHost. I try to take SarekOfVulcan 's involvement with good faith, but I will say he does sometimes seem to use Admin power to excess, to force his desired outcome. His apparent attempts at humor sometimes work, but sometimes inflame or derail discussions. ] (]) 05:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Scjessey=== | |||
| Although still somewhat bruised from my , I would be delighted to see the committee accept this case. Broadly-speaking, I concur with the statement made by ]. ] has very few regular editors, which makes it easy for one or two individuals to disrupt the editing environment - the lack of participants also makes it easy for editors to make ownership claims. Of particular concern, however, is the behavior of a disgruntled ex-customer who has essentially destroyed a peaceful and productive editing atmosphere by attacking the subject, and then the editors, of this article. | |||
| Attempts to improve the article are constantly obstructed (again, fairly easy to do with so few editors to help establish consensus) and advice gained from informal mediation, requests for comment and third opinions is essentially being ignored. Suggestions for article improvement are quashed with claims of "advertising" or protracted meta discussion. | |||
| It is my hope that rather than taking punitive measures, ArbCom will instead focus on offering guidance to all involved parties (both named and otherwise) as to how to resolve conflict and return to productive editing. I also hope that this might lead to a wider discussion of the problems associated with ], as I have found that these are a frequent source of disruption across much of Misplaced Pages. -- ] (]) 15:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by {Party 4} === | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.'' | |||
| === Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/1/0/1) === | |||
| * Accept to consider the conduct of everyone involved in this matter. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 03:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Decline''' There is an AFD outstanding, and an informal mediation that is said to be ongoing. Wait for the AFD to close, and then attempt to use formal mediation. You may also want to try the new ] out. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 04:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * Awaiting further submissions. I would like to see the AfD to close as well before determining next steps. John Vandenberg's suggestions for alternatives are good. I'm of the impression, however, that this is a content dispute that still has some opportunity for resolution. ] (]) 13:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Accept''' to look at the user conduct issues. The Afd's closed one way or the other is not going to fix the problems that I see looking through editing history of some of the involved parties. ]] 13:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Awaiting further statements, including the other named parties' views on whether they see a path to resolving their dispute here short of arbitration. ] (]) 13:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Waiting for other statements. If other parties are willing to seek dispute resolution then it could be declined. if not it should be accepted. We'll see. ] 23:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Accept'''; regardless of the AfD results, some poor behavior has occurred around this topic that bear looking into. — ] <sup>]</sup> 04:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Accept''' - AfD now closed as 'keep', conduct needs review. ] (] '''·''' ]) 14:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024
"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC. Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open cases| 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 requests| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan_3 | none | (orig. case) | 4 January 2025 |
| Motion 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
|
lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.