Revision as of 22:53, 10 March 2014

Requests for arbitration

Topic discussion

Initiated by Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) at 22:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• AlphaOmega2211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff. 1 Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine#User:Irondomes immediate reaction on reading this, 21 hours ago.

Statement by {Party 1}

Statement by {Party 2}

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Topic discussion: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0>-Topic_discussion">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Soccer in Australia

Initiated by Serialjoepsycho (talk) at 14:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Serialjoepsycho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• John (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff. 1Serialjoepsycho (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Diff. 2- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:John&diff=598844137&oldid=598838028

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Football_in_Australia)#RfC_on_naming

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

I came accross this topic in RFC. This has been a contentious issue a number of times. Football, Soccer, and a few other names have been preferred by specific people. This RFC attempts to bind a consensus until 31 August 2015. But as consensus can change I don't feel that it can do that. I questioned that much to John's chargin. I did not realize how ever that John was an admin until here. As an involved Admin he fails to see his conflict of interest. His failure and unwillingness to recuse himself amounts to abuse of power nd calls in to question any fairness in this RFC.

I however agree with John. I think this dispute calls for a binding decision. Evidence in the RFC suggests this dispute is old and it has been somewhat disruptive. It should however not be bound by the power of an admin with conflict of interest. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• The reason I bring this here. John's failure to recuse himself makes me feel that he might do it elsewhere in another dispute resolution. In 2013 RFC Arbcom choose an univolved admin to moderate the discussion. Then they choose 3 experienced editors to make a judgement on the consensus. I would just like to this that all sides are fairly represented and halt this dispute for the time being.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• per wp:rfc an RFC can be ended it moved to another dispute resolution forum, such as mediation, or the RfC participants can agree to end it.

I opened a discussion in RFC to move and close this RFC. This was closed as a disputive edit. It questioned the legitamcy of the authority. A question that was answered with "I will enforce this by blocking those who threaten the process if necessary, then take my actions to AN/I for review." Essentially, I will shoot first and ask questions later. I can't actually see that as offering a reasonable answer. It actually leads me to question the level of checks in place to temper adminastrative power, that along with closing a discussion where the primary question was moving and closing that current debate.

Johnuniq, If you wouldn't mind could you clarify: "However, anyone wanting to revive a known-disruptive issue that has been settled in yet another RfC should be prepared to explain at ANI why the new discussion is worthwhile." Does that preclude opening a new RFC or other form of dispute resolution without AN/I approval?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• The question of the legitimacy of the authority should be answered. Can an editor open an RFC to close discussion of a particular topic for a pre-determined amount of time? If the answer is no then the question would become can an Admin open an RFC to close a discussion of a particular topic for a period of time? I can only struggle to call this a community consensus when very little effort is made to bring in the greater community. I can't note the possible abuse that either of those could set a precedent for. I can only imagine what abuse I could do. The things that I could do that could effectively stand as a policy. The risk only lessens with Admins but only because of the lower number of Admins.

Any kind of process that will burden discussion with red tape needs to be very controlled and limited. Yes truly the disruption has to stop. But I do not see how that equates to the discussion has to stop. If there is any need to break the back of this dispute it should be done at the top. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

Obviously there will be no Arbcom case as prior dispute resolution steps have not been investigated. However, this request should not go unanswered because "As an involved Admin he fails to see his conflict of interest" (in the request) contains a false accusation of "involved", and an unsubstantiated and misguided charge of COI. There has been an absurd amount of drama concerned with what Misplaced Pages should call a particular game played in Australia, and John has very helpfully stepped forward in an attempt to provide an organized structure for the protagonists to engage with the issues, rather than continuing to attack each other. Serialjoepsycho may be unaware that if the current discussions at WT:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) are unable to stop the ongoing bickering that the issues will return to WP:ANI where the behavior of each of the participants will be assessed. It is very likely that ANI will effectively deal with the situation with topic bans or blocks, as appropriate, and Arbitration will not be required. Johnuniq (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• @NE Ent: No, of course an RfC cannot prevent further discussions. However, anyone wanting to revive a known-disruptive issue that has been settled in yet another RfC should be prepared to explain at ANI why the new discussion is worthwhile. Johnuniq (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent

I get that opening a case likely isn't warranted, but there is an interesting policy question here: Can an RFC in March 2014 forbid future discussion of a topic by any editor until a pre-determined future date under threat of blocking?? (I think the only reasonable, policy based answer is "no" per WP:CCC) NE Ent 22:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

This case appears to be about "the name of the game". There are clearly a few editors who are stubborn about the term to be used for this sport in Australia, and who are willing to clutter the noticeboards. I don't see any evidence presented by the filing party or anyone else that a reasonable effort has been made to resolve this content dispute. The filing party has not identified any specific conduct issues that prevent the resolution of the content dispute (the name of the game). On the one hand, I urge the ArbCom to decline this case, at least for now. On the other hand, I ask that a few administrators keep watch over this issue and to be willing to make hard blocks for any editor who engages in personal attacks or tries to maintain ownership of the name of the game. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by John

Pretty much what Johnuniq said. I stepped into this a few weeks ago with a view to trying to help editors problem-solve a long-running content dispute over what the Beautiful Game should be called in an Australian context. Prior to that I do not think I have ever edited in this area or expressed any interest in the area. I have not even edited any football/soccer articles in quite a while globally; I think the 2010 World Cup is probably the last time. I am curious to know why the complainant thinks I have a COI or in any way could be considered INVOLVED. The complainant has queried the legitimacy of the attempt I am co-ordinating to resolve this dispute, and I have advised them that if they have serious qualms about it to raise it at AN/I, where my efforts were recently endorsed by those who commented. The complainant has seemingly dismissed my good-faith attempt to cut this Gordian knot, and in the space of less than 36 hours has progressed from commenting to raising an arbitration case about it. I have made exactly two admin actions in this matter; my 24-hour block of User:Macktheknifeau was endorsed in the AN/I section above, and my one-week block of User:Orestes1984 which is currently being discussed at AN/I. As with any of my admin actions I welcome community review of this, but I remain baffled as to how the complainant gets INVOLVED or COI out of this. Of course we will not know unless or until they provide some diffs or links. I would also especially welcome anybody watching this who has time to read and understand it. --John (talk) 07:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by User:Macktheknifeau

I don't know exactly why I was pinged to this, although I presume it was because I'm involved in the RFC, and this type of arbitration discussion looks well above my figurative wikipedia paygrade. From what I can see, it appears to be some kind of attempt to render the RFC invalid or censure John for running it? Neither of those two would be an action I suppose at the current stage. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Soccer in Australia: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/3/0/2>-Soccer_in_Australia-2014-03-09T18:04:00.000Z">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Awaiting statement from John, but unlikely to accept without further evidence that this has been a disruptive dispute. At first glance, it does not look like something suitable for arbitration. It appears to be a content dispute that should carry on being handled the way it is, with content editors deciding the content. If you want a wider discussion that is binding for a set period of time, the community should be capable of setting up and handling that without ArbCom (or indeed, deciding that such a process would be a waste of time and it would be better to focus on improving the rest of the content of the articles, rather than spend time resolving yet another terminology dispute). Our role (if needed) would be mostly limited to removing editors that were disrupting the process. Carcharoth (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)"> ">
• I'll mull it over a bit more, but my thoughts mirror Carcharoth. Arbitration is the last method of dispute resolution because it is far from ideal; if there's a better option it should be taken, and I don't see serious disruption and violations of policy, more sniping and grouching on all sides. I would note to John that when WP:INVOLVED is applicable it is far better to simply not use the tools, rather than use them and go to ANI; the latter is far more likely to lead to drama and complaints of admin abuse, even if the action itself is reasonable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• This seems like a fairly simple mis-understanding of WP:Consensus can change. If an well participated RfC shows a strong consensus, that consensus should be respected, not forever, but until a similar RfC shows that the consensus has changed. I don't see the need for a date for enforcement, but at the same time there's been enough disruption to mean that a date is reasonable. I've seen nothing that says John is involved here, nor that he is particularly using admin powers. That makes this a content dispute (or a meta content dispute) - and not one that has been through many dispute resolution processes. As such, I'd decline this request. Worm(talk) 10:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• Inactive I'm going to sit this out,  Roger Davies 10:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• What Carcharoth said, but given John's statement this is a pretty clear decline as not ripe for arbitration due to lack of other attempts at dispute resolution, and out of scope as it stands as a content dispute. LFaraone 16:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• Decline There are some interesting issues at play here, but they are issues regarding the nature of consensus. That is something the community needs to handle. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)