| Revision as of 13:57, 5 July 2012 view sourceJc37 (talk | contribs)Administrators48,850 edits 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> = | |||
| {{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. ]|<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. ] <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. | |||
| *In response to : I think that misses what this is about. The question is not "Are we going to use Pending Changes", although arguably Arbs can get into that if they want to interpret their role broadly. The question is "Was the RfC closed correctly?" This is not an issue of policy or content. It is an issue conduct in that it is about what the closers did. ] (]) 09:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment from Seraphimblade=== | |||
| I'm of two minds on this issue. Except for DQ, who I don't really know one way or the other, I have a very high regard for those admins who closed this thing, and so I hope they will not take it too badly that I have serious questions about their judgment in this case. I have a lot of concerns about the close, and while I'll disclose that I opposed continuing PC, I don't think it's just sour grapes—I've closed more than one tough discussion, and while I know you can't please everyone, you also have to make every effort to maintain neutrality and propriety, both in appearance and in fact. I'll try to be concise, but at least some of you know that's not exactly my strong point. Please bear with me. | |||
| *The numbers are of concern. While we do operate on the principle of "discussion, not a vote," this RfC wasn't really set up that way anyway, since it forbade editors from adding new sections with nuanced opinions or for additional discussion. As such, it was very similar to an RfA, and its numeric threshold was at the point (low 60% support) where an RfA would essentially automatically fail. Given that this is a far more substantial change than making a single user an admin, it should seem it should require at minimum the same proportional level of support, and likely more. | |||
| *A very popular option at previous discussions, that PC must be improved before we would consider using it, was excluded (explicitly) from the discussion. The rationale was: "The option of the tool itself (as opposed to the policy on its use) being improved or altered before considering re-deployment is deliberately absent from the positions. Pending changes is a specialized version of the more restrictive "flagged revision" system. It was developed by the Wikimedia Foundation specifically to be used on en.Misplaced Pages and is not used on other projects. For that reason the Foundation made it clear that it would not expend any more resources to develop pending changes until this project had determined that they would actually use it. Therefore the option of improving it first before deciding is not viable at this time." (links omitted). This is a flawed rationale—since Pending Changes, as a part of Mediawiki, is ] software, ''anyone'' could have volunteered to do improvements the community required before use. WMF's involvement would not have been necessary at all to improve the software. This is likely to have suppressed a significant number of those who previously expressed the opinion that PC must be improved before use, only to come to the discussion and find their option not only absent, but a header forbidding its addition. | |||
| *The user who designed the RfC, ], also clearly supported PC: . Given how rigid the structure of the RfC was, and that others were prohibited from adding new sections (especially the very popular "Improve first" position), it is quite inappropriate that someone with a strong view on the discussion decided on the rigid structure. If the RfC must be rigidly structured, it should have been drafted by someone neutral on the subject. This gave Beeblebrox an inappropriate opportunity to channel discussion on the matter, and whether intentional or not, it would be almost impossible for someone with a strong opinion to draft a completely neutral RfC. This one wasn't, and it excluded at least one critical and popular opinion, to improve before use. That's why we generally allow everyone to add opinion sections, and don't do rigid voting/ballot type structures. We certainly should not do such when a partisan in the matter is designing the structure. | |||
| *Implementation was separated from activation. Rather than a full discussion deciding if we can come to a consensus on ''how'' to use PC, it was essentially stated that even if we cannot, it will be activated with a "draft" use policy, ''also'' drafted by Beeblebrox. This "activation even if we can't agree how" was not, to the best of my ability to find, noted as a consequence of "supporting" the RfC. | |||
| *One closer seems to have indicated that the developers were in private contact with the closing admins during the close: . Unless I'm misreading, that's utterly inappropriate. If the devs had something to say, they should have said it openly and publicly at the discussion just like anyone else. It was not appropriate, or even close, for them to be advising the closers during the close, and it was even more inappropriate if the closers considered what they had to say when deciding how to close. | |||
| There are too many flaws here to have confidence in the outcome of this discussion. I'm not sure what to recommend—starting the discussion over without all the restrictions on what may or may not be discussed, throwing the whole thing out for good since low-60's isn't near consensus for a major structural change, whacking with trouts but otherwise keeping it and moving on—I just don't know, but that's why we have an ArbCom. I think it would be beneficial for the Committee to open a case and at least take a good look at what happened with this train wreck, and it would ease a lot of people's minds. Maybe it would help us do better in the future, too. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Rivertorch=== | |||
| While I have no strong opinion as to whether this falls within the province of ArbCom, I do have serious reservations about the close that don't seem to fall into anyone else's jurisdiction. Aside from the question of the numbers—and a less than two-thirds majority ''is'' problematic for green-lighting a change as far-reaching and potentially game-changing as pending changes might turn out to be—the marked lack of rigor displayed by the closers in their decision calls into question whether they exercised proper diligence in attempting to determine consensus. | |||
| Of the more than 500 editors who participated in the RfC, over 85% offered a substantive comment to explain their !votes, and a sizable number engaged in further discussion. Yet in reading the closers' remarks, I was left with the distinct impression that they had completely ignored most of the arguments—strong and weak—on both sides, and still somehow come to a remarkably one-sided conclusion. Rather than make any attempt to summarize the major arguments, they selected, apparently at random, several concerns expressed by Option 1 supporters and summarized the rebuttals made to those few concerns by Option 2 supporters. Option 1 supporters did also take the time and trouble to rebut various arguments put forward by Option 2 supporters, but you'd never know it from what the closers wrote. | |||
| Reasonable people can disagree about whether the closers made the right decision; in the final analysis, that is a matter of opinion. ''How'' they went about making their decision is something else entirely: that ought to be a matter of fact and a matter of record, easily discernible from the wording of their close. Anything else makes a mockery of the efforts made by the RfC's participants and sets a troubling precedent for those who close important RfCs in the future. Unfortunately, little can be discerned from what the closers have told us. | |||
| Although I am familiar enough with two of the closers to state without reservation that I believe them to be highly competent, conscientious editors whose presence on Misplaced Pages I value considerably, I cannot help thinking that their work here was slipshod and fell far short of the thorough, careful close that the community had a right to expect on such an important question. Pending changes is undoubtedly one of the most controversial issues ever considered by the community, and there can be little doubt that closing the latest RfC on it had to be a thankless job. All four closers took the task on willingly, and presumably with their eyes wide open. It was incumbent upon them to be meticulous and thorough, ''and to document that they were so''. In that, they failed utterly, and that failure cannot help but cast a pall over whatever comes next along the road to PC implementation (or non-implemention, to keep all options open). ] (]) 09:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by Barts1a=== | |||
| People seem to be having an issue with the percentages behind this close, but they seem to be failing to look at the numbers behind the percentage which add quite a bit of validity to the closure. There is a gap of 130 people between supports and oppose. That gap alone is more people than we get participating in most RfC's from all options combined! The total number of participants was 503 or which 308 supported option 1 which is a lot of people whatever way you look at it! While the consensus is small in terms of percentage it is actually quite large in terms of raw numbers. If we judged all policy changes by percentages alone many of the original policies would still stand in their original and much less effective forms and we probably would still be using the currently redundant CSD criteria as new ones would never have been implemented! ] / ] / ] 11:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by Collect=== | |||
| I do not find ArbCom has a normal purview of all closures of RfCs, hence have the opinion that this is ''not'' the place for this discussion. Unless, of course, the intent is to accuse the closers individually and collectively of misconduct warranting formal sanctions. Absent such, I doubt there is cause for this action. ] (]) 12:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by A Quest for Knowledge === | |||
| This sounds like a content (well, policy) dispute. I don't see any conduct issues here. It's therefore outside the scope of the Arbitration Committee's purview. ] (]) 12:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Uninvolved comment by jc37 === | |||
| The only thing I wanted to note was that, since this case seems to be concerning a close, and ''specifically'' notes the "numbers of votes", I just wanted to remind everyone: | |||
| * ], and with only one exception (noting immediately below) we do not count votes for closing, but weigh arguements. | |||
| *Discussions which grant an individual additional responsibilities (or to remove such responsibilities) which may also include one or more user-rights, are typically some hybrid of consensus and voting. | |||
| I think that this also may be a confusion in this case. While this policy/process would introduce some new responsibilities for editors; this particular discussion, afaict, does not by it give any particular individual any additional responsibilities. | |||
| So ] would clearly apply. | |||
| If arbcom wants to accept this case, so to be a form of '''closure review''', similar to ] or ], then that's obviously up to them. Though I can't recall a time in the past where they have done so. (I have no doubt, someone will remind us if such examples exist : ) - <b>]</b> 13:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| === Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/1/0) === | |||
| *'''Recuse''' as a vocal supporter of pending changes. ] (]) 07:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' - the Arbitration Committee is primarily involved with user conduct, and doesn't stipulate content, or policy. As far as I can tell, this request concerns policy, and not user conduct, and therefore is outside the remit of the Arbitration Committee. ] (]) 09:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == 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- 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 requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motions| 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.