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 01:21, 18 August 2015 view sourceL235 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators27,345 edits →Clerk notes: +← 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}}
<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>
== Cjhanley and No Gun Ri Article ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 21:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|WeldNeck}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|Cjhanley}}

;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 WeldNeck ===
A bit of background on this request. ] is actually former AP correspondent Charles Hanley (don’t worry, I’m not ] him, he has stated this from day one. Hanley has been a contributor to the ] article and his behavior there with respect to me as well as the principals and policies of Misplaced Pages needs to be addressed.

He has an obvious ] with respect to this topic which he refuses to acknowledge. He continues to demand removal of well sourced material from a historian who has been critical of his work. This particular historian's work which Hanley has a beef with has been well received by fellow historians. This is not confined to Misplaced Pages but is part of a broader campaign by Mr Hanley to have this individual silenced which .

<blockquote>Late last year, Hanley wrote a nine-page letter to Stackpole Books, the Pennsylvania publisher bringing out Bateman's book this month, saying it would be a "grave mistake" to publish Bateman's "diatribes and defamations." A copy of the letter, filled with personal attacks against the author, was made available to The Chronicle. </blockquote>

His desire to ] the article can be summed up with his statement:
::

Aside from his ], Mr Hanley is extremely rude and insulting on the article talk page continually questioning my motivations, my intelligence
::

An attempt to ] me (for the record, I have no idea what anyone here is talking about – don’t keep a blog
::

Thousands of words on the article's talk page detailing all of my alleged sins:
::

User talk sub pages direct at insulting and attacking me:
::

Charges of racism against fellow editors, inlcuding myself
::

The examples listed above are a representative sample of the kind of interactions I have had with Mr Hanley for nearly two years on this article. I am prepared to offer many more examples.

This has nothing to do with Mr Hanley’s knowledge or even his POV. He has displayed and continues to display behavioral issue that need to be addressed by ArbCom.

Thank you for your time.

] (]) 21:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

*{{rto|Iryna Harpy}} I have never once requested a ban for Hanley. This Arbcom case is my last option to reign his poor behavior in however they decide to accomplish that is on them.
*{{rto|Binksternet}} I am not attempting to neuter the article. What I am attempting to do is incorporate a significant POV that has been removed from the article because one of the contributors has a professional grudge against him. ] (]) 18:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Cjhanley ===

::There's a sad irony in this business. Someone who has exhibited bad-faith, uncooperative, bullying behavior across Misplaced Pages comes to this forum to try to eliminate from a discussion the person who knows the most, by far, about the subject, so that he can again have free rein to impose his POV, in this case that of a war-crimes apologist. Anyone can see the outrageous behavior by examining his Talk page history, paying special attention to the telltale material he has deleted over time (the "minus" diffs). I counted more than 20 contributors with whom he has aggressively clashed, pushing his POV, defying fellow editors, inserting weakly sourced POV material. Why have WP admins not done something about this?

::I was part of a Pulitzer Prize-winning team of journalists that in 1999 confirmed the U.S. massacre of refugees at No Gun Ri in 1950, an event subsequently reconfirmed and elaborated upon by South Korean and U.S. official investigations, and by other journalistic and scholarly work. By 2012, I finally had time to learn the WP ropes and grapple with a WP article, No Gun Ri Massacre, that had been taken over by "American patriot" denialists and turned into a mess that, when not incoherent, was packed with disinformation designed to excuse a mass killing that all knowledgeable observers not affiliated with the U.S. Army agree was a self-evident war crime.

::With help from an admin and others, a sensible, straightforward, solidly sourced article evolved. One denialist attacked the article, but he was soon banned from WP (for actions elsewhere). An IP vandal from the U.S. Army intelligence center also attacked, but was dealt with. Then in August 2013, editor WeldNeck (a frequenter of gun articles possibly drawn by No "Gun" Ri) decided he didn't like the straightforward approach and began wholesale deletions and insertions of disinformation and tendentious material, usually from one highly unreliable source (an activist with the 7th Cavalry Regiment association, the regiment responsible for the massacre). Good-faith efforts to reason with him got nowhere; efforts to restore essential, solid material were met, without a word, with reverts, and then more reverts. Efforts to enlist admin help were futile. "I'm in over my head," concluded one admin. A litany of WeldNeck's outrageous actions at the time can be found ].

::More than a year ago, for my own well-being, I had to pull back, in disgust and in hopes that the WP community would catch up with WeldNeck at some point. Then, recently, new editors began to see the myriad problems with the article and coalesced into a discussion group. With gigabytes of source material and years of experience with the subject, I rejoined. We're making progress. And that seems to be why WeldNeck is trying to break up the discussion. (He threatened another of the group with ArbCom or somesuch action as well.)

::As you can imagine, my thoughts about WP are decidedly mixed. But here we have an opportunity to restore one historically important article to some solid footing, if we're allowed to continue. But once we achieve that, my question will be: How will the article be protected against this and other POV warriors? Thank you. ] (]) 16:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to show the ArbCom just what one apparently is supposed to put up with when dealing with complainant WeldNeck. Just now at ], within minutes of my posting it, he deleted a major, detailed comment I posted on a central issue in the ongoing discussion there. He cited a totally irrelevant WP protocol.

See the deletion . He has done this repeatedly in the past as well.

Frankly, I don't have the time or inclination to become a WP "litigator" and work to have something done about WeldNeck and his outrageous behavior. My efforts in the past proved futile and frustrating. But I don't understand why admins, when confronted with anecdotal evidence like this, don't look deeper themselves. Thanks. ] (]) 21:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Beyond My Ken ===
I am not a party to the editing dispute '''''directly''''', but I did participate fairly extensively in the AN/I discussion noted above. I disagree that this is something that the community can handle, given Cjhanley's intransigent and hard-core attitude of ownership of this subject, both on-Wiki and in real life, and his dismissive attitude toward contributions to the article based on work by anyone who dares to contradict his own conclusions -- all of which are amply demonstrated in that AN/I thread. That discussion showed that Hanley and his protectors have no intention of softening their attitude towards the article, and are indelibly committed to the "right" version (i.e. '''''Cjhanley's''''' version) of events.

The underlying content dispute cannot, of course, be handled by the committee, but Hanley's attitude and behavior are directly antithetical to the collaborative and collegial ethos which is supposed to prevail here, and that is something that, I believe, only an ArbCom decision can deal with effectively.

I urge the committee to accept this case. ] (]) 00:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

'']. ] (]) 19:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)]''

=== Statement by GeneralizationsAreBad ===
I have been involved in the case for months now, and have attempted to mediate the dispute, although my attempt has met with mixed results. I must also say that my primary goal is resolving this dispute permanently, and that said dispute encompasses essentially all of the article, not just a controversial sentence or two. I honestly am not sure precisely what changes need to be made to the article, even though I believe it could be made a little less contradictory and confusing. I think that arbitration is an extreme step, and that this case should go through formal mediation first. I agree that there are serious behavioral and content problems that need to be addressed, but I believe we should exhaust all other options -- including mediation and DRN -- before going here. I will refrain from offering a lengthy, in-depth analysis of the problems unless the case is accepted, but I do not believe this is the right venue at this moment. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
:@BMK: While I agree, I think the fact that he's now making edit proposals -- as opposed to just changing things outright, which is frowned upon by the other editors -- suggests that he is eager to make changes to the article if others agree. As it happens, the last major change, the removal of a disputed photo, was backed by <del>almost</del> everyone. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
:: I backed its removal as well. ] (]) 00:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
::: My mistake. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
::::{{reply to|JzG}} I wish it was that simple. While this is equally contentious, to be sure, I think there's inherent uncertainty here that isn't quite seen in Holocaust- or Japanese war crimes-related article disputes. "Denialist" is indeed a name on the page, sadly. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::{{reply to|Cjhanley}} Whether someone is anonymous or not doesn't really bear on the validity of their criticisms and views. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::{{reply to|Iryna Harpy}} As someone who has read through the talk page archives and monitored the page for months without making bold changes, I fully agree that this needs to be examined as a very long-running feud between two editors with drastically conflicting views. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
:Update: there is now another flare-up on the talk page: I hate to say it, but I can't see any possibility of these two editors working together on this article. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::{{reply to|Yunshui}} What with the recent development, I agree with you that there may not be any actual dispute left. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

===Statement by uninvolved Dennis Brown===
I've no involvement in this but I did poke around and would like to make an observation based on my experience patrolling ANI for a number of years. A case like this is unlikely to get resolved or proper attention at ANI because it has already been at ANI a few times. As volunteers, we admin aren't particularly attracted to cases that have been unsuccessfully resolved at ANI a couple times before as they can easily turn into drama-fests, with previous participants jumping in with preconceived conclusions based on the previous problem, etc. etc. etc. I'm not saying that admin do NOT get involved, only that these complicated cases require reading all the back stories and are time consuming. All the research, commenting and questioning is much more difficult in the unstructured format that is ANI, thus fewer admin (or none) tend to get involved. ANI is great for putting out fires, but ill suited for protracted problems. In contrast, Arb is highly structured and it is much easier to police the page of tangential comments, and get a resolution using less effort, while suffering less drama. I'm not sure if this is what {{u|DGG}} is thinking or not, but my conclusion is that this case doesn't ''require'' that it is handled at Arb, but this is a special case where the community would be best served if it ''was'' handled by Arb. Arguably, the previous non-resolutions demonstrate that the community ''can't'' resolve it. With this is mind, I would request and recommend that Arb accept the case. ] - ] 18:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
::yes, that is what I meant. ''']''' (]) 18:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Binksternet===
This conflict comes from three separate issues. The first issue is that WeldNeck is obstructive. He appears to be interested in obfuscating the article, clogging it with unneeded detail, for the purpose of making it harder to read and thus harder for the reader to conclude that the US committed a war crime. WeldNeck does not want the US military to be blamed for this massacre, despite all the evidence otherwise.

The second issue is that Cjhanley is a thoroughly experienced topic expert while WeldNeck is not. Cjhanley has tried to convey the Associated Press's investigative conclusions as best he can, which means he has reacted strongly against WeldNeck and others who have either blindly defended the US for whatever reason (patriotism, nationalism), or have singled out Cjhanley as having a conflict of interest.

The conflict of interest is the third issue, but I don't see it as having much of a bearing on this case. In real life, Cjhanley has published multiple accounts of the No Gun Ri massacre, alone and with co-authors, and his writings on the topic have been published in prominent newspapers and in scholarly books put together by respected editors. Despite Cjhanley's acknowledged involvement in adding to the literature about the topic, he is quite willing to base article text on work written by others. That's why I don't think we have a case of someone trying to feather their cap by getting more coverage of their writings. Instead, my impression is that Cjhanley is simply concerned that the topic be accurately portrayed.

Whatever happens in this case, I would hope that the committee recognizes the value of an objective topic expert (Cjhanley) while documenting how WeldNeck has tried to neuter the article, to render it ineffective, and how he has tried to get Cjhanley banned, for no good reason. ] (]) 02:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Iryna Harpy ===
While I have no doubt that WeldNeck is a good faith editor, I feel compelled to toss my 2¢ worth into Binksternet's hat as I believe s/he has presented a succinct evaluation of the issues at stake. I only joined in on the talk page at the behest of another editor in order to establish the history, and so that experienced, neutral third party editors could mediate and evaluate references. Essentially, I do not see Cjhanley as being the single 'culprit' for disruptions as he seems to have been characterised: there is a distinct line of difference between SPA and being an authoritative editor, and Cjhanley falls into the latter category. Per GAB's response to BMK, he is actually welcoming other editors and working collaboratively and constructively with them (us). Bearing in mind that Misplaced Pages's blocking, sanctioning, etc. objectives have never been intended to be punitive but to open lines of communication and dialogue, pursuing punitive measures retrospectively doesn't tally with the spirit of the project. --] (]) 04:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

:{{rto|Beyond My Ken}} There is a distinction between articles dedicated to publications (covering criticisms, ''et al'') and the article covering the event per TITLE. Evaluation of RS - biased or not - appropriate to the article takes place in that mainspace and its talk page. Personally, I am far more concerned about the use of a primary document as a substitute for third party sources: something which has been introduced to the article's content. If a secondary source is deemed to be inappropriate, it is a matter for consensus on the talk page. There is always room for inline attribution. Bringing primary sources to the article and presenting them as unattributed statements of fact flies in the face of NPOV. I could understand your asking arbiters to read sections of the talk page or look at the mainspace history of an article on a publication you are dubious about, but asking that they read the article in order that they familiarise themselves with something you or they haven't read begs reminding you of WINARS. --] (]) 23:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

::{{rto|Beyond My Ken}} Considering that it is WeldNeck who brought this case to ARB, very little attention has been paid to the initiator. I'm suggesting that context is everything, and that if you are ] as being a ''known'' POV-pusher, WeldNeck is no less his counterpart with the exception that he is an ''unknown'' POV-er. It takes two to tango, and WeldNeck's long-standing and ongoing engagement should not be dismissed as if he were Cjhanley's victim. If there isn't already a BOOMERANG coming back this way, there probably should be. --] (]) 00:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

:::{{rto|GeneralizationsAreBad}} As you know, I've been watching the article for a few months without getting directly involved. What it boils down to is that there are two diametrically opposed editors whose behaviour, in conjunction with baiting and other bad faith practices, escalated into OWN long ago. The proposal to get rid of one (who owned up to his potential COI from the outset) as a solution is a bad one. Had he chosen to remain anonymous, his editing would not be subject to scrutinisation for who he is (and that is assuming that he is who he claims to be). This current ARB is tainted no matter what perspective one looks at it from. --] (]) 00:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Cla68 ===
It appears that the arbitration committee, if it accepts this case, will have to do some critical thinking on who is right, or more right, on a content issue. This goes against the committee's historical stance that it does not make judgements on content issues, only user behavior issues. Thus, this case is a good example of why Misplaced Pages needs a content appeal committee, to be the ultimate decision authority on content disputes. Of course, I know that most Wikipedians would fight tooth and nail to prevent such a committee from being established, because it would threaten the localized hegemonies that they've painstakingly established in their topics of interest. ] (]) 07:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by JzG ===
I wonder if perhaps the issue is simply that we have not topic-banned a few people who are determined to airbrush out the historical view of this massacre? It's understandable, form a psychological standpoint, that nationalistic pride can lead top rejection of compelling evidence of malfeasance. There are Japanese writers, for example, who deny that Japan kidnapped women to be sex slaves for the Imperial Japanese Army, and there are Germans who deny the holocaust. When these people arrive at Misplaced Pages we give them short shrift. It's not clear to me why this topic area would be any different. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by ] ===
I note that GeneralizationsAreBad suggested formal mediation. I see that, prior to Cjhanley's entry of a statement, there was justified skepticism that he would accept formal mediation, but, now that he has entered a statement, I would suggest that formal mediation is worth trying. I see Cla68 has said that Misplaced Pages does not have, and should have, a content appeal board. Some Wikipedians have recommended, as a perennial proposal, that one or more editorial boards are needed, and many non-Wikipedians assume that Misplaced Pages does have an editorial board. Misplaced Pages does have a process that, occasionally, in contentious cases, does, in a more collaborative manner, essentially what a content appeal board would do, and that is formal mediation. I have worked with formal mediation in the past and am very impressed by its effectiveness. Since Cjhanley is now willing to work with other editors, I would suggest that the ArbCom either suspend this case for an extended period of time to allow formal mediation, or decline this case without prejudice to allow formal mediation, with the right to accept arbitration again if formal mediation fails, and to impose discretionary sanctions and topic-bans. Let's give formal mediation a chance, now that the parties seem willing to give it a chance, knowing that if it fails, arbitration will kick in. ] (]) 20:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by ] ===

I was involved in this article some time ago, mostly when it was Hanley and Kaufner (the latter of whom was a really disruptive user). My interaction with WeldNeck was somewhat limited and came toward the end of my involvement with the article. At the time I did a lot of research and bought/acquired much of the source material for the article (including Bateman). I should also mention that Charles Hanley & I had a rather pleasant breakfast together when we both happened to be in London in which we discussed the article. Finally, my thoughts may be out of date as I have only lightly been following the article in recent months. My impressions are as follows:

* Hanley is a veteran reporter adapting to a very different venue, and although he has a very staunch viewpoint I think he holds broadly the consensus view. Over the years he has definitely shown willingness to learn and adapt to Misplaced Pages's rules. His knowledge of the topic is, naturally, encyclopaedic in depth and this can mean discussions surrounding changes can become lengthy and detailed, which can definitely put off all but the most stalwart contributor (that's not a criticism of Charles, it's the nature of the topic). I would say that he argues (or at least did, sorry if that has changed) that he has no COI because he is just a reporter passing on information. I think most here would agree that under Misplaced Pages's guidelines he meets the criteria to be considered having a COI. But that might be an academic point because I have seen a marked turn towards good COI best practice such as edit suggestions on the talk page. Whilst I agree with Hanley that Bateman is a flawed source, I am not sure his view (as I remember it) of not referring to Bateman at all (or as limited as possible) is correct.

* As I mentioned I have limited experience with WeldNeck. He certainly does not strike me as anything but a well-meaning contributor. He holds the staunch opposite viewpoint on the article and puts a lot of store in Bateman & related sources. I previously felt he needed to engage a little more in discussion and be open to debate over source material - but as I said, this may have changed.

* The entire climate around the page seems significantly better than it was. There was a LOT of poor behaviour (some of which is still around, I can see frustration causing cracks) in the past. To me this suggests that the comunity is getting to grips with the article and contributors. I will broadly say that those editors supporting the Bateman version of events has *overall* been the worst behaved.

Ultimately this is a very complex content dispute. But the article I think has improved, generally, and there does seem to be uninvolved editors willing to mediate (which is what is needed). It's a very hard slog (as I found) to do that and requires some committed mediators. I don't really see what Arbcom can do other than hand out some warnings or content restrictions (there isn't really much gregarious bad behaviour to deal with): but so long as those editors informally mediating the article are continuing to do so I don't see how that is productive. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 19:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by ] ===

I have been involved in a minor fashion in attempting to improve the atmosphere and encourage collaborative behaviour in what is a highly complex and emotive subject. I have made a very few suggestions on how to go forward. I believe this Arb request to be counter-productive. Work is continuing to move the article forward on the relevant T/P. We should only be here if all other alternatives have been exhausted. They clearly have not. Both Mr Hanley and Weldneck appear to be quite capable of working together and even occasionally reaching consensus. It appears to happen more when there are a significant number of editors collaborating with them. I suggest all parties continue to devote their energies to resolving the article issues, by finding compromises that all can reasonably live with. It is only as difficult as ''any'' party wants to make it. ] (]) 20:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by timothyjosephwood ===

The whole thing is a mess. That's about all you can say unless you are committed to delving into the last few years of this article. Either the US is blameless and the AP is literally Hitler, or visa versa. What is really needed is an (or multiple) independent Korean War experts to sort the issue out. There's too much backlog of argued over and over-argued over obscure documentation for a casual editor to deal with, although many are trying. ] (]) 20:41, 14 August 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).''
*{{clerk note}} {{re|Cjhanley|WeldNeck}} Please see the big red notice at the top of the page, specifically, {{tq|If you must reply to another person's statement, do so in your own section}}. I'm sorry none of us noticed this before and notified you, but there must be no threaded discussion on this page. Please expeditiously move your replies to your own section, or they may be refactored or removed at the discretion of any clerk or arbitrator.
:In addition, everyone reminded that statements are limited to 500 words, and replies to other peoples' statements count towards the word count. Again, in addition to the notice that {{tq|rbitrators or clerks may summarily remove, refactor, or move inappropriate material, without warning or notice}}, arbitrators and clerks may trim statements to be 500 words or the closest sentence (or another point at their discretion), should that limit be exceeded. Thank you. ''']''' (] / ] / ]) 21:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Cjhanley and No Gun Ri Article: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/7/0/2> ===
{{anchor|1=Cjhanley and No Gun Ri Article: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small>
* This dispute is protracted but activity surrounding it has been sporadic, so this does not seem to me like it requires arbitration under one of the usual tests. Disputes accepted here usually need to be long-running or short-lived but widely disruptive, as well as complex or involving sensitive or special evidence. Arbitration is the final stage in the dispute resolution process; earlier stages should be used at this point. '''Decline.''' I would further recommend that revisiting the ANI thread, which petered out without a resolution. This should be fairly simple to resolve, and does not require the committee's intervention. ] ]] 00:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' per AGK. Community resolution of this dispute should be possible - a single attempt at AN/I that failed to reach a conclusion is not evidence of failure. Perhaps an uninvolved administrator familiar with dispute resolution on that board could help shepherd the next attempt and prevent it idling out again. ] (]) 09:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
*<s>'''Accept'''</s> Wow, that was a lot of background reading. Whilst I appreciate AGK and Thryduulf's positions above, I'm seeing a lot of attempts to address this which are just petering out due to the complexity of source analysis involved. In my view, an ArbCom case to separate out and examine the behavioural issues might serve to break the back of the dispute, so I think it may be worth our time. ]&nbsp;]] 09:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
:*Striking my vote to accept until the current email discussion is concluded. ]&nbsp;]] 07:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' Acting on evidence submitted to and discussed by the ArbCom email list, I have blocked WeldNeck as a sock of ]. I would now prefer to pass this case back to the community to re-review in the light of this information. ]&nbsp;]] 08:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
::*{{ping|Beyond My Ken}} Hanley's not involved in the discussion, no. It's list only, and is in fact only tangentially related to this case; however I'd like to resolve it before deciding whether or not this should be accepted. ]&nbsp;]] 16:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
*Would like to see at least a few more statements, but I really think Yunshui is on the right track here. ] (]) 20:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
:*<s>'''Accept''' ] (]) 18:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)</s>
:*'''Decline''' having reviewed and agreed with Yunshui's block, this is moot. ] (]) 20:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
*'''Accept''' In practice the necessary resolution can be done here , whereas it is much less likely to be done at ANI, so there's no point sending it back there. There is also a merit in a instance like this is securing a definitive result that cannot be appealed further. (though ''why'' it has not been done at ANI is a little puzzling.) ''']''' (]) 07:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
*<s>'''Accept''', I tend to agree with Yunshui. The previous attempts at resolution seem to show that they may not be an effective method of dealing with this particular situation. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)</s>
**'''Decline''' as no longer necessary. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
*I was waiting for Cjhanley to comment, but, since he's been editing regularly, I'll vote anyway. ArbCom, generally, deals with the disputes that the community has shown to be incapable of resolving; however, I'm not sure that it's been proven the community is incapable of dealing with this issue. For that, I'm voting to '''decline''' this request. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 09:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' He's been working on the talk page whichmakes the need for a case here even more dubious. ] (]) 17:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
*Holding off until we conclude the initial discussion but on fence as it stands. I wouldn't say the community has exhausted DR options but none of them look like they'd be particularly fruitful and there are a significant number of parties which would like us to take the case which to me holds some weight inherently but is definitely inadequate by itself. That being said until the internal discussion ends I won't cast a vote one way or the other. '']'' <sup>]</sup> 19:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

== Malik Shabazz ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 01:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
*{{admin|Georgewilliamherbert}}, ''filing party''
*{{admin|Malik_Shabazz}}
*{{admin|Chillum}}
*{{admin|Mike_V}}
*{{admin|KTC}}
*{{userlinks|Brad Dyer}}

;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
* Malik warned
* Malik blocked and reblocked (Chillum, Mike V, and KTC)

=== Statement by Georgewilliamherbert ===
Malik and Brad Dyer entered into a content dispute which apparently turned nasty on both sides (documented . Malik appears to have taken it far further including a number of personal attacks and eventually a block of him, him doing a page unprotect through the block (Chillium), and block extension (KTC). Having used admin functions in a personal dispute with other users through a block, it appears that a temporary desysop may be required, possibly by motion. Full case may or may not be required. Malik is not known to me to have had behavior issues prior to this incident, this is unlike him.
=== Statement by Malik_Shabazz ===

=== Statement by Chillum ===

=== Statement by Mike_V ===
=== Statement by KTC ===
=== Statement by Brad_Dyer ===
=== 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).''
*{{Re|Georgewilliamherbert|Ceradon}} Any objections to merging the two requests? ''']''' (] / ] / ]) 01:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Malik Shabazz: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0> ===
{{anchor|1=Malik Shabazz: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small>
*



== Malik Shabazz ==
'''Initiated by ''' ''']''' <small>(] • ])</small> '''at''' 01:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
*{{admin|Ceradon}}, ''filing party''
*{{admin|Malik Shabazz}}
*{{admin|Chillum}}
*{{admin|Mike V}}
*{{admin|KTC}}

;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
A case of possible administrator abuse; DR unnecessary.

=== Statement by Ceradon ===
I believe we may have a case of abuse of administrator tools. The earliest example is likely here: , where Malik Shabazz revdels one of his own disparaging comments. Then, here: , where Shabazz says "suck my dick, ass hole" while giving {{u|Brad Dyer}} an ANI notice. Then here, , where Shabazz says, "No, you can suck it, sonny boy. What'll you call me next, nigger?". Now, ] states that "grossly inappropriate threats or attacks" may be revdelled. However, Shabazz, despite (or in spite of) his block, unrevdels that particular diff with the summary: "Restoring the truth -- you people can ignore this is you want, I won't". On his talk page, he says, in reference to {{u|Chillum}}, "You can suck my dick, too, asshole" . And here , Shabazz states: "Now when the fuck is somebody going to address the fact that the Jewboy is harassing me? Or is only okay to hound niggers off Misplaced Pages?" Our ] states: "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow ] and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Misplaced Pages is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status." Shabazz, on August 8, revdeled one of his own disparaging comments. It begs the question, what else has he hidden. How much else has flown under the radar. Shabazz has been an administrator for 8 years. I hate finger-wagging, but he should know better. I think there is enough material here for a case. Thank you, --''']''' <small>(] • ])</small> 01:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I should add, that Shabazz was blocked by Chillum for 2 days as a result of personal attacks., and reblocked by {{u|Mike V}} for misuse of talk page privileges, and then reblocked again by {{u|KTC}} for abuse of admin tools. --''']''' <small>(] • ])</small> 01:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Malik Shabazz ===
=== Statement by Chillum ===
=== Statement by KTC ===
=== 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).''
*

=== Malik Shabazz: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0> ===
{{anchor|1=Malik Shabazz: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small>
*

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.