Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:02, 5 July 2012 view sourceYaris678 (talk | contribs)Administrators12,372 edits →Statement by Yaris678: Add← 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 editors42,350 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}}
= <includeonly>]</includeonly> =
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}} {{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{-}}
</noinclude>
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</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>}}
== Pending Changes RfC close ==
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
'''Initiated by ''' —<font color="228B22">] ]</font> <sup><small>]</small></sup> '''at''' 04:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
Due to the nature of the case, there are no "parties" per se. However, listed alongside me are the administrators who ultimately closed or oversaw the closing of the RfC, as listed on the page.
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|Jéské Couriano}}, ''filing party''
*{{admin|The Blade of the Northern Lights}}
*{{admin|Fluffernutter}}
*{{admin|DeltaQuad}}
*{{admin|Thehelpfulone}}
<!-- 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. -->
*Thehelpfulone:
*DeltaQuad:
*Fluffernutter:
*TBotNL:

;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 -->
Additional dispute resolution would be singularly unhelpful due to the polarizing nature of the subject matter, thus aside from the RfC in question and the three preceding it there is no dispute resolution. In addition, as this case concerns a request for comment with significant ramifications for Misplaced Pages and there is a deadline of 11/01/2012 before discussion on the matter will approach a drawdown, dispute resolution would be ineffective and a timesink in any case.

=== Statement by Jéské Couriano ===
A couple of months ago, the ] on whether to retain or reject ] was started. This request concerns itself with its close.

On June 23, 2012, the RfC was by four admins, all of whom have professed neutrality with respect to whether or not PC is implemented. The close was ultimately to implement Pending Changes, but to work out its policy before it goes live, with a provisional policy as a fallback should a policy not be developed before November 1. However, since then there've been several complaints about the close - specifically, the totals. When closed, the totals were 178/308/17 (178 in favor of rejecting Pending Changes, 308 in support of keeping it with the provisional policy, and 17 in support of reworking the policy before implementing it). Even lumping Options 2 and 3 together, the end percentage in support of PC is 64.1% (Separate, Option 2 only has 61.6% support), as being quite low for a discussion with serious consequences for en.wp and thus gives the impression the close is being used as a super-!vote. Hence this request.

I'm filing this to clarify whether or not the result is proper at 61-64% in favor and, if it isn't, what the actual consensus of the discussion is. —<font color="228B22">] ]</font> <sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Keilana ===
I'm not 100% sure I'm allowed to comment here, so please remove this if it isn't appropriate. I was
one of the closers for the recent Muhammad images RfC, and found that determining consensus in these matters is more difficult than meets the eye. We don't use straight votes in this community for a good reason; consensus is a far better model for determining the true level of support for a proposition. The closers were all experienced admins, who know what consensus is and how to find it in a protracted discussion like the PC RfC. We don't need more drama with PC, we need to work together to implement the solution we decided on as a community. Arbitration will not help with that admittedly difficult process. ]&#124;<sup>]</sup> 05:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

=== Comment from The ed17 ===
I don't think the committee should second-guess this close. What Jeremy seems to forget is that discussions on Misplaced Pages aren't governed by strength of numbers alone; the individual arguments presented from both sides also play a strong factor. The four neutral administrators who closed this RfC took the time to weigh both sides and determined that in numbers and argument, there was consensus to enable pending changes. If the committee does decide to take this on, which it might do to provide yet another "final" decision in the tortured history of pending changes, I urge them to do so by motion. Enough acrimony has come about thanks to pending changes over the last few years, and there is little need for more through a full case. ]&nbsp;<sup>]] ]]</sup> 06:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Yaris678 ===
The closers stated that their decision was based on an analysis of the arguments put forward, rather than claiming that the majority was sufficient per se. I think this is reasonable in light of ]. If there is room for criticism it is that the analysis of the arguments seems partial, in both sense of the word. They seem to have picked the weaker arguments of the opposition to pending changes and ignored some of the others.

A full list of the issues raised a immediately after the trial can be found at ] (pro, con and requests). Some of these cons could be argued against quite easily, others could be dealt with by an appropriate choice of policy. I would prefer to see them all addressed in some way if we are going to base the closure of this RfC on arguments.

As a side note, I did not express an opinion at ] but I did make some comments on the talk page in the hope of finding an acceptable solution. I was involved in compiling the list at ], which may explain my bringing it up here, but if someone can identify a better list I’d be happy to see it.

=== Statement by {Party 5} ===

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

=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) ===
*

== Thomas Sowell ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 22:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|CartoonDiablo}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|Chris Chittleborough}}
*{{userlinks|CWenger}}
*{{userlinks|PokeHomsar}}
*{{userlinks|Thargor Orlando}}
<!-- 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.
*Diff.
*Diff.
*Diff.
;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 -->
*Link
*Link
*Link

=== 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 :

{{quote box|*'''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 ] of news, and the paragraph also gives the opinion of two people supporting Sowell's publication of the article, thus ensuring the commentary is ]. Based on this, inclusion of MMfA is acceptible. ] 03:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

*'''Comments about consensus''' Based on the article's ], 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) ] 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) ] over time -- a consensus from a year ago can be changed; (4) Misplaced Pages's ] disallows the use of "no consensus" as grounds for preventing change to an article. ] 03:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)}}

However editors continue to exclude it for POV reasons (or no reason at all) (, ) and continue to claim consensus as a reason for such exclusion. I hope that arbitration will solve this once and for all. ] (]) 23:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

:To Looie496, that Arb request was premature because it predated the content dispute resolution. I mistakenly took the 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 01:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

=== 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 ===

It might be useful to explain explicitly why the reasons for declining a in May are no longer applicable. ] (]) 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 (0/5/0/1) ===
*'''Decline''' Still a content dispute, so things that were said still apply. ] 03:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
*If there is clear consensus supported by policy to use a source, and some users are deliberately and repeatedly ignoring such consensus to remove that source; or if there is clear consensus supported by policy to not use a source, and a user was repeatedly ignoring such consensus to reinsert that source, then some form of dispute resolution could be used to establish who was in the wrong. While I see that some dispute resolution has been tried, I'm not convinced that we are yet at the stage of an ArbCom case. A single admin could sort this out with a moderated discussion on the article talkpage. Stage one - establish if the source is notable (check at ] - search through archives first to get a feel for past discussions on the source); if yes, stage two - establish if use of the source is acceptable per ] and other related policies; if yes, stage three - get consensus on the most appropriate wording. If that later breaks down, then let the admin know. The admin can lock the page and/or block users for edit warring as appropriate. If the admin is unable to resolve matters then you could try RfC, ] and/or ] before returning here. ''']''' ''']''' 11:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''. This still seems to be primarily a content dispute; if there are conduct issues or the sort SilkTork describes, I'd still rather see that this go through some form of mediation first. Arbitration is for when the community is completely unable to deal with a case; I don't see that this has reached that point. ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 17:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' as a content dispute at this point, pathway outlined above by Silktork ] (] '''·''' ]) 19:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' as a content dispute. Incidentally, I think some of the discussion of the content dispute has kind of missed the point. It's fairly obvious that if there's a good reason to discuss what Media Matters thinks of Thomas Sowell, then Media Matters' website is a reliable (and perhaps even a necessary) source on that issue. Isn't the real question whether Media Matters' opinion is important enough to be worth discussing? ] (]) 19:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
* '''Decline''' in the hope this dispute can be resolved without arbitration, which is often a lengthy and contentious process. This doesn't imply your dispute is unimportant, but merely that arbitration isn't the best way to resolve it. I suggest you look at ], where there are several kinds of dispute resolution that could be useful. For the content side of the dispute, given the complexity of the issues, I would suggest the next stage is ], and if there are more serious problems you could try either a ] or ]. For the user conduct dispute, if there are relatively minor concerns you could try ], and if there are more serious conduct problems, I would suggest a ]. If after the earlier stages in the dispute resolution process have been attempted, we could look again at whether arbitration was required. ] (]) 21:01, 2 July 2012 (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 Case requests

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
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024
Requests for arbitration


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.


File an arbitration request


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.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@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.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

  • This page is for statements, not discussion.
  • Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
  • Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
  • Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
  • After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
  • Declined case requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.