| Revision as of 20:48, 2 February 2015 view sourceCourcelles (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators434,776 edits →America: Imagine the World Without Her: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter: dec← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:41, 22 December 2024 view source SilverLocust (talk | contribs)Administrators24,828 edits →users reverting changes made for accurcy despite repeat requests and backed by verifiable evidences: Removing request for arbitration: declined as prematureTag: Manual revert | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:ARC|a guide on talk page archiving|H:ARC}} | |||
| <noinclude>{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{-}} | |||
| </noinclude> | |||
| =<includeonly>]</includeonly>= | |||
| <includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for arbitration}}}}</noinclude> | |||
| <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}} | |||
| {{NOINDEX}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}} | |||
| <noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude> | |||
| <!-- PLEASE PLACE NEW CASE REQUESTS BELOW THIS LINE --> | |||
| == America: Imagine the World Without Her == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 14:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{userlinks|Casprings}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{userlinks|VictorD7}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Gamaliel}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Scoobydunk}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Srich32977}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Erik}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|SPECIFICO}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|TheRedPenOfDoom}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Steelbeard1}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|The Four Deuces}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Elaqueate}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Arzel}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Obsidi}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Charles Edwin Shipp}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|DocumentError}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Lawrencekhoo}} | |||
| ;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 | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| === Statement by Casprings === | |||
| The conflict has been ongoing for months and shows ongoing ].[ | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her&diff=prev&oldid=643267915] . Moreover, there are edit wars everytime the article comes off being protected. The basic dispute involves the ] of certain content. That said, this has been ongoing for months and the behavior on the page indicates this is mainly a behavior problem and cannot be resolved by working though the dispute resolution process. | |||
| {{reply to|Courcelles|DeltaQuad|Thryduulf}} I brought this here because of behavior. If I need to directly name editors in my statement, I will. I think the problem is mainly ]'s ] mentality and those editors (i.e. ] and ]) who have supported this mentality. Victor has been on this particular article and pushing it towards a favorable/right wing view of the movie for month. This can be seen by simply looking at some of the old archive thread. They contain multiple times he did not ] and is hostile towards other editors. | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| Each time the article is unprotected, Victor starts to push is own content. He has been sitting on this article pushing ] for month, has done long term ] to get his way, and has been hostile to other editors in getting his way. Moreover, he isn't shy about his purpose or rational for being involved in the article. As he says: "Yeah, it comes down to numbers and persistence, which is why all the numbers and persistence we can get counts." | |||
| In sum, this is a behavior problem. It cannot be handled at ] because his supporters will defend him on any thread started on Victor. If this is to be handled, it will have to be handled here.] (]) 04:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{reply to|Courcelles|DeltaQuad|Thryduulf}} ] also has made some comments about the behavior of myself and others. I would suggest that you have two sides, each seeing each others behavior as problematic, and a conflict that has been ongoing for months. This is the sort of conflict that that is ongoing and difficult to solve that the committee was created for.] (]) 21:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{reply to|Courcelles|DeltaQuad|Thryduulf|Seraphimblade}} I requested this case because there has been a long history of | |||
| editing waring: Quote: , , , | |||
| : Score , , | |||
| POV Pushing(Contains some edit waring): , , , , , | |||
| And Attacking others on the talk page <!-- --> | |||
| I will keep on building difs above if this is the sort of evidence the committee is looking for. To me, this is something that has been going on for months and clearly shows aggressive editing behavior problems to achieve an article that supports a certain POV. I understand that that many of you see this as a content dispute. That is fair enough. However, every behavior dispute is also a content dispute. That is normally the reason for the behavior. With that said, I think this is an ongoing behavior issue that is unsolvable by the people currently involved nor is it likely to be solved by community consensus. I would also note that I have only focused on one editor, ]. I did this because of time and the tools are there to find difs on one editor easily. However, I feel many different editors are the problem her. That said, I can not continue to add difs right now. I will do so later if this is helpful. If I am wasting my time, please let me know. ] (]) 17:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Gamaliel === | |||
| My feeling at this time is that I really want nothing more to do with this article and I would like to disengage from this conflict, as I have attempted to do so. I feel that the nature of this conflict, its duration (6 months or more), the lack of signficiant unbiased community input aside from ], and the constant belligerence of an SPA who has camped out at the article, and the arrival of Misplaced Pages's resident political warriors has caused an impossible situation and has caused a number of editors, most definitely including myself, to act in ways that they should be ashamed of. At this time, I feel like all the editors listed above except ] should disengage. Whether or not the Committee should take this case, I have no idea. ] <small>(])</small> 17:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Per {{u|Courcelles}}, policy issues that the Committee could consider in this case. | |||
| * ]: What qualifies as a reliable source? A number of editors, including myself, have pointed to the requirement for "sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and noted that Breitbart has a well-documented reputation for the opposite, bringing up repeated instances of egregious errors and deliberate falsifications on the part of both the publication and the author of one of the Brietbart articles in particular. Other editors have contended that the fact that Breitbart has an editorial structure and people with the title of journalist is sufficient to quality as an RS. | |||
| * ]: Editors should not be allowed to repeatedly accuse other editors of a biased agenda or of ] when those editors raise policy-based objections. | |||
| * ]: Is it appropriate to cite a questionable source three times in this article? Is this unduly elevating a fringe source? Should, as some editors have advocated, this fringe source be included three times because mainstream sources allegedly have a political bias against the nature of the film? | |||
| * The proper use of an RFC. Several RFCs have been held regarding whether or not Breitbart can be used as a source for its own opinion and have been closed in the affirmative. Is this a mandate that Breitbart should and must be included in the article regardless of considerations of undue weight, elevating fringe viewpoints, and POV? | |||
| * When is consensus achieved? Should contentious material remain in the article while it is under discussion on the talk page? Is it edit warring to keep this material in the article or is it edit warring to remove it until consensus is achieved on the talk page? Is a consensus required before such contentious material is removed? | |||
| * ] and ]. | |||
| ] <small>(])</small> 19:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Also, I wanted to say that I'm really not sure how I keep finding myself in the middle of protracted drama in the last six months. I really need to go back to writing articles about low drama topics like deceased librarians, apparently. ] <small>(])</small> 20:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| "There are none because, for the most part, the involved editors are well behaved". {{u|Srich32977}} does not recall the same article I recall, nor does he apparently recall when he and I collaborated heavily on talk and via email attempting to curb conflicts and hat contentious discussions on the talk page and deal with one troublesome editor in particular. Why he now dismisses behavior he once thought was troublesome I have no idea. ] <small>(])</small> 20:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Steelbeard1 === | |||
| While I am no longer involved in this article because of the constant edit warring, my issue has to do with the inclusion of biased and unreliable sources such as Breitbart which is infamous for editing news stories to fit their biases and change the context of the material. Breitbart citations should never be allowed in Misplaced Pages articles. ] (]) 17:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Erik === | |||
| I came across the article a couple of months ago when I saw a discussion that indicated that individual film reviews should be left out of the article. I found this questionable and have since become involved. I have expanded the article from to 57 kb so the article could be more well-rounded. The biggest debate to date has been whether or not to reference Breitbart.com, a conservative website, to state that professional film critics panned the documentary because they were liberally biased. Concerns about referencing Breitbart.com at all were also raised (since the website is also referenced in two other places in the article body). I disengaged from editing over the liberal-critics claim, but edit warring has taken place essentially to combat ], and I requested for page protection three times to halt this animosity. (I was fine with including the liberal-critics claim because I offset it with many details from a variety of mainstream sources but did not forcefully edit to include it.) The RfC about the claim recently closed with the outcome of including it. Now I think the focus has shifted to other aspects of the article that I added, in particular the "Critical reception" and "Political commentary" sections. For the former, the talk page is being used to work out the proper balance of sampling reviews. | |||
| My concern going forward are mainstream sources (appropriate per ]) being challenged as "obviously" liberal and warranting being equally or near-equally offset by conservative commentary. For example, a current discussion is about stating in the lead section that film critics panned the film, and the push is to follow that with conservative commentators claiming the critics were liberally biased. I argued that this was a false balance because there is not "sufficient detail" (per ]) in the lead section about the majority view (the straightforward assessment of critics panning the film) when presented beside the minority view (questioning the credibility of these critics). The "Critical reception" section is sufficiently detailed about the majority viewpoint to offset the brief liberal-critics claim; readers can see specifically how reviews like those from ''Variety'' and ''The Hollywood Reporter'' analyze the film. There may be other issues that come up with the "Political commentary" section, which is a somewhat novel structure to try to fold specific political statements under certain sub-topics, such as the "Alinsky" sub-section where the ''National Review'' says Alinsky's background was worth mining, and the ''National Journal'' finds Alinsky's connection to Obama too conflated. The balance of statements in this section may be a challenge since this topic is a narrow one with mostly "newsy" sources and being too new to have any retrospective, critical analyses yet (if at all). ] (] | ]) <sup>(])</sup> 19:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Thargor Orlando=== | |||
| My involvement basically begins and ends with a comment or two on the RFC. Putting aside the content issue, if there's a way for ArbCom to simply, via motion, put the article under discretionary sanctions or something similar, that might just be able to solve the issue without having to go through an entire case. The behavior issues are on the line, but some sort of more significant oversight with teeth might be the solution. | |||
| ===Statement by Srich32977=== | |||
| As filing party says "The basic dispute involves the ] of certain content." That said, where are the administrative actions (blocks, warnings, scoldings, etc.) taken to enforce proper editor behavior? There are none because, for the most part, the involved editors are well behaved. Accordingly this request is outside the purview of Arbcom. – ] (]) 20:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Various editors may have been troublesome to other editors because of their persistence or because there is a basic disagreement, but no editor in the list has had a block imposed because of disruptive behavior in connection with the article or article talk page or other user talk pages. (Hence my comment "for the most part" about their behavior.) I do not see where the ] was ever invoked to resolve the content issues. As I believe the Arbcom will decline this case, editors might take some time to ] on how the DRN works. Really, the Breitbart issue is a <u>small</u> content dispute best resolved elsewhere. – ] (]) 23:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| The diffs provided by Casprings reflect persistence (and some frustration) on the part of many editors, especially Victor, as they all push on the ]. But the fact remains that the Brietbart material was discussed and accepted in the RFCs. Accordingly, Victor is and was justified in retaining it. Comments have gotten testy at times, but the number of {{tl|hat}}s and {{tl|rpa}}s in the 5 archives/1,000 kb of discussion is small. There is no behavior problem here, so I urge the Arbcom to close this so that even more digits can be devoted to the on-going, if not alluring, article improvement discussions. – ] (]) 18:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Obsidi === | |||
| I believe this is mostly a content dispute and as such inappropriate for ArbCom at this time. We had an RfC on the inclusion of Breitbart as a reliable source for its opinions on this movie and it was resolved by the community in the affirmative. It would be inappropriate for ArbCom to overrule the community on a content decision like that. The current dispute over the Shapiro quote was added on November 5th 2014. Gamaliel reverted with ], it was added back in, and then . No one else removed the quote or even discussed doing so on the talk page for a month. It became the consensus decision at least at that time. Many of the recent “editwars” have been people trying to change that consensus and remove the quote (I have not edited mainspace at all on this page). The page is currently locked at the most recent consensus, as it should be while there were recent editwars. I would like to get the page unlocked, without the ongoing editwar if there was a way to resolve that quickly (maybe just a motion that the current page represents the most recent consensus, so people need to reach a new one before changing the Shapiro quote). Do we really want ArbCom issuing decisions as to if this particular quote on this particular page is undue? | |||
| I would like to know, what “deliberate falsifications” that Gamaliel is accusing Brietbart of? There is no doubt that Brietbart has, at times, posted things without sufficiently double-checking the accuracy of their source. They are hardly the only media organization to do so over the same time period (many of which are and should be considered reliable sources), such as, , , , , , , , , , , . To error is to be human, but that is far different from an accusation of “deliberate falsifications.” The Sherrod case is currently an ongoing lawsuit that has not been resolved. In the ACORN undercover sting only elected Democrats have accused Brietbart of editing out of context (even the New York Times said “the most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context”). Paul Krugman’s bankruptcy was clearly incorrect, but it was citing a Boston Globe article (which I believe we consider to be a reliable source, hardly the first to get a story wrong relying on another media outlet). That leaves the “Friend of Hamas” story in which Ben Shapiro said “When people make corrections or find things that I do wrong, it doesn’t upset me. It urges me to do better.” And the misidentification of Loretta Lynch (wrong lawyer with the same name), which Breitbart removed the erroneous article (hardly the first news organization to misidentify someone with the same name ). I’m not suggesting that these other news organizations are not doing their best to try to present an accurate story, but mistakes happen in all journalism. Breitbart issues corrections and attempts to find the accuracy of their sources like all other media outlets, and sometimes, like other media outlets, it makes mistakes. That said, even if Breitbart is a questionable source, it can be a source for its own opinions that do not relate to third parties, that is what the RfC appropriately resolved in this case. | |||
| === Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom === | |||
| This is mostly a content issue spurred on by several poorly worded RfCs whose results have been pushed beyond the actual consensus of the RfC. | |||
| And while even the most prestigious news organizations have occasional failures in their long history and wide publication range, those errors stand out because such errors are unusual for those publications. with breitbarts short history and narrow range, the multiple errors are what the publication has a reputation for. -- ] 11:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by VictorD7 === | |||
| This accusation is an attempt by Casprings to wage a content dispute by other means. He filed this immediately after his request for content mediation (though I had personally agreed to participate as a show of good faith, only to now be rewarded with this). It's unclear how he chose the parties list, as it excludes some key long term participants he politically opposes and includes some he's politically aligned with who have barely if it all participated. He incredibly accuses Collect by name but fails to even list him as a party. This request should be rejected outright. The article was remarkably stable for a while until, as has already been laid out, Gamaliel and a couple of other editors sought to remove by then long standing material against opposition by multiple editors (e.g. , , , ). The edit warring resulted from a difference of opinion over what the most recent consensus version was. But since then with against the source, Gamaliel announcing his disengagement, and the current warning by the page protecting admin not to resume reverting without "unambiguous consensus" or "blocks will be forthcoming", the edit warring is already almost certainly over. Civil discussion on various content matters has continued in recent weeks between Erik, me, and others on the talk page, and should be how things continue to progress moving forward. | |||
| I totally reject the accusations against me by Casprings. I have always edited for neutrality, while he, Gamaliel, and a couple of others have been editing with dogged, uncompromising tendentiousness on the article for months, trying to purge political views they disagree with at every turn while failing to apply the same standards to material they politically favor (even putting it in themselves), skewing the article as negative as they could, resulting at times in it being warped into a laughably one sided propaganda page. Casprings' quote above was pulled from my own talk page last July and was said in the context of trying to figure out how to deal with such a small but determined group of tendentious, partisan editors. | |||
| My solution, following standard suggested Misplaced Pages practice, was to draw in views from the outside community. I . Later Collect was forced to start the RFC mentioned earlier for a different segment referenced by the same source, with the same result. Both RFCs were properly worded to address the policy objections being cited to oppose the segments. A , started by Casprings and seeking removal of Breitbart, saw a majority of respondents oppose removal and was retracted by him. That I and what Casprings refers to as my "supporters" are the ones editing reasonably and for neutrality is evidenced by the wider community repeatedly supporting our positions while rejecting his arguments. | |||
| I have also already debunked Gamaliel's accusation that I'm a "" (single purpose account). I'm not a full time Wikipedian with tens of thousands of posts, but was established for two years before ever visiting this film article, with edits on numerous diverse pages, and have recently resumed posting more on different articles. Repeating his false personal attack is disruptive, but if he's serious about disengaging I'm not inclined to make a big deal about it. ] (]) 21:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Updated reply to Caspring's latest comment about both sides seeing bad behavior in the other: Except my solution was to involve the wider editing community, not burden Arbcom with a frivolous, now resolved content dispute. We're only here because none of those RFCs went your way. No, this is not what Arbcom is for. ] (]) 21:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Updated response to Casprings' link dump: Your "Attacking others" list is ridiculous and mostly consists of me expressing disagreement on substance or defending myself, as anyone can see from the context of your own links. You also don't support your claim of "POV pushing" with anything other than links showing my concern for neutral coverage of both sides. Your "edit warring" list lumps together one time reverts, implementation of talk page consensus, routine edits, and even partial self reverts. Virtually everything you posted comes from several months ago and the issues that led to what contentious discussion occurred have been resolved by RFC. You've posted no evidence of ''ongoing'' issues, and I certainly won't be edit warring. I and others are currently engaged in civil talk page discussion regarding future article edits. ] (]) 19:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by {Non-party} === | |||
| Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information. | |||
| <!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * --> | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| * | |||
| ===America: Imagine the World Without Her: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/2/0/4> === | |||
| {{anchor|1=Very brief and neutral name describing the topic of the dispute: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small> | |||
| *Awaiting more statements. I'd like to see statements specifically addressing, given we cannot decide content, how a case would improve the general conduct and editing environment. ] 17:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Decline''' I think the conduct issues are much more at an AN level than the ArbCom one, and most of this is a content dispute. ] 20:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Awaiting statements''' per Courcelles. -- ] ] 17:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Awaiting focused statements'''. I note that while there have been additional comments since my colleagues voted, there is little addressing how a case would improve the conduct here. This does seem to be essentially a content dispute (or a series of them) and I'm not seeing anything about specific editors preventing resolutions, so it is not obvious what a case would achieve. Last year's ''American Politics'' case did provide that "ny new areas of conflict which involve contemporary American political and social issues ] without the need for a full case.", and while this does squarely fit within the relevant topic area, I'm not seeing in what has been so-far presented above much that convinces me discretionary sanctions would help here. What specific behaviour by which specific editors is the reason this dispute has been so protracted? ] (]) 01:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *So far, I see this as the sort of question which is best handled definitively by WP:RSN, which can deal with the actual issues, while we can deal only with the peripheral conduct. ''']''' (]) 08:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' given the lack of clear evidence that this is within our remit. ] (]) 16:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't really see what we're being asked to do here, and the matter looks to be largely content rather than conduct related. Leaning decline unless someone can indicate much more clearly why arbitration is required here. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 18:41, 22 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.