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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:30, 11 April 2014 view sourceManul (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,647 edits →Statement by vzaak← Previous edit Revision as of 21:29, 11 April 2014 view source JzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,070 edits →Statement by {Party 3}: pahNext edit →
Line 96: Line 96:
] 19:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC) ] 19:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


=== Statement by {Party 3} === === Statement by JzG ===
Presumably the nominator would eventually have got round to letting me know about this.

I can sum this request up in a few words: "Boo-hoo, we didn't get what we wanted, let's go round the loop again in the hope we get a different answer".

The problem on the Sheldrake article (and the related article {{la|Deepak Chopra}} is very simple. Misplaced Pages's policies do not permit uncritical coverage of fringe beliefs, the subjects of biographies of individuals who hold fringe beliefs often do not like that. They very often mobilise supporters to come to Misplaced Pages to demand changes. I could name a dozen articles that have been subject to offsite collusion, email campaigns and the like.

Our job is to patiently explain policy, firmly exclude those who refuse to accept policy, and to strive for an article which, if the subject can't bring themselves to like it, would at least look fair to an outside observer. {{la|Rupert Sheldrake}} was, last time I looked at it, perfectly fair.

Unfortunately the subject disagrees and has taken it upon himself to accuse Misplaced Pages and the scientific community of science of some giant conspiracy to suppress his conjecture of "morphic resonance", based on the refusal of the scientific community to accept his conjecture without, you know, proof, and all that tiresome science stuff. He's written a book, The Science Delusiuon, which is an extended piece of ] along those lines.

It's been going on for a long time, the article should probably be under discretionary sanctions if it's not already - I don't know because it's at least a couple of months since I even looked at it or its talk page.

Similarly, I am unaware of any active attempt at dispute resolution. It's a simple matter of ] until you get the answer you want, or get banned, IMO. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by {Party} ===


=== Clerk notes === === Clerk notes ===

Revision as of 21:29, 11 April 2014

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Battleground Off of Rupert Sheldrake   11 April 2014 {{{votes}}}
Arzel   3 April 2014 {{{votes}}}
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
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.

Battleground Off of Rupert Sheldrake

Initiated by The Cap'n (talk) at 18:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried (This is a relatively small sample; this has been a contentious issue with many more discussions, ANI's, and related AE's than would be feasible to list here)
  • Attempted Talk Page Resolution: 1 (impossible to list completely; 20 pages of archived material), 2, 3
  • Attempted Sanctions: 1
  • Attempted Noticeboard Discussions: 1, 2, 3
  • Attempted AE: 1
  • Attempted AR: 1 (determined to be a legitimate issue that needed to work its way through the resolution steps above), 2 (original Arbitration on the issue)

Statement by The Cap'n

I apologize for the greater than 500 word length.

There is a culture of WP:BATTLEGROUND at Rupert Sheldrake which treats editors outside a particular group (including vzaak, barney_the_barney_barney, 76.107.171.90, and to a lesser degree QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV & Second_quantization) as enemies that are held to a different standard than the dominant skeptical editors. These editors have ignored WP:GOODFAITH, practiced reputation destruction of those who have WP:BLP concerns and repeatedly declared that anyone who has a different POV on the Sheldrake page should be blocked from it, pursuing battleground through harassment on & off WP, including barrages of blocking attempts and canvassing among those on the skeptic "side." The very assumption that there are "sides," let alone a right and wrong one, violates Pillars 2-4 and has resulted in a hostile environment where there didn't need to be one.

I submitted an AR about this in November 2013, which was returned with the suggestion I again try normal channels to resolve the WP:Battle issues. My addressing this "Us vs. Them" mentality as recommended has resulted in persistent harassment, something many other editors on this page have faced. Fringe v. Skeptic should not be the issue; I am a skeptic myself but consider the behavior on this page to be in violation of WP:BATTLE, WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN. The information below is representative of the problem.

  • Establishing Battleground: A number of editors (generally skeptics) repeatedly insist that there are clear "sides" and that theirs is the only acceptable POV (1, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6). These editors claim that they need to defend the page from large numbers of pseudoscientists, despite the fact that out of the top 10 contributors to the page, known skeptics have made 1,043 edits to Sheldrake, while those who disagree with them (many of whom present BLP issues rather than Fringe) have made 372. They consistently refer to any dissent as illegitimate and proof of incompetency, woo-pushing, stupidity or trolling behavior. Example:
"Seriously though, you should leave the Sheldrake page alone. The forces of reason won “the battle for Rupert Sheldrake’s Misplaced Pages page” and it’s time for you to accept that. 76.107.171.90" 1
  • Harassing the "Opposing" Side: There has been systemic abuse of those who have either contradicted these vocal editors or argued on behalf of those who have been harassed, (1, 2, 3), especially typified by the hostility shown Liz, who has never edited a Fringe article but merely pointed out battleground behavior. Editors are warned that if they want to avoid harassment they should never edit Rupert Sheldrake again. (1, 2, 3) This harassment does not stop within WP. Vzaak, who has argued in nearly every Sheldrake sanctions case in favor of blocking dissent, has been prominently cited in both the both the New Republic and Tim Farley’s skeptic blog ridiculing the non-skeptical WP editors on Sheldrake. Tim Farley edits transparently as Krelnik, has posted on the Sheldrake page and off WP promoted and defended the harassment and outing of a WP editor.
  • Silencing the "Opposing" side: In addition to denigration, the same collections of editors canvass one another to gain support for SPI/AE's intended to silence differing opinions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Ironically, these procedural attacks increase the more that an editor complains of being attacked, and rarely include significant evidence of disruption or abuse. Reputation destruction is conducted by preserving their own accusations as "character" evidence for later, larger cases. (1, 2)
  • Failure of Existing Measures: Semiprotection does nothing against established editors and Revert-Restrictions do not address the problem of WP:Battleground tactics that target editors rather than articles. My own case demonstrates what it is clearly retaliation, as every procedural has been initiated immediately after I've complained about one of the skeptic editors:

    1. Action 1: When I could not maintain an edit no matter how much I discussed/negotiated or how minor the change (ie. removing redundant quotes, fixing punctuation), I filed an ANI to address an aspect of the WP:OWN behavior.
      1. Retaliation 1A (Within 1 Day): The ANI stalled, but within hours Vzaak sent a message to Barney_the_barney_barney telling him to "check his email," and a few hours after that Vzaak filed an SPI accusation against me, pushing for my blocking.
      2. Retaliation 1B (Within 1 Day of SPI's End): When the SPI ended with just a warning Vzaak immediately filed an AE insisting that I was a deceptive harasser that needed to be blocked. (The case was tabled for lack of any evidence)
    2. Action 2: I was threatened by other skeptic editors that further complaints would lead to my blocking. (1, 2), culminating in obscenities and personal attacks. I filed an AE against the most offensive editor when I discovered he was canvassing other editors to try and block me despite months of avoiding any Fringe article. The AE led to the temporary sanction of 2 skeptic editors for PA's and WP:CIVIL, despite their attempts to WP:BOOMERANG.
      1. Retaliation 2 (Within 1 Day): The very next day after the AE, another SPI was leveled against me by a different skeptic editor, accusing me of issuing death threats even after an admin told him that a CheckUser confirmed I had absolutely no connection to the crime. I am shocked at being accused of criminal behavior as what seems to be retaliation for editing disagreements.

In summation, we have a group of editors adopting a zero-sum mentality, turning editors who could otherwise be productive into outcasts by attacking their reputation and harassing them away with what, in extreme cases, borders on libel. This is resulting in needless SPI’s, AE's, battleground activity, discouraged editors and a violation of the spirit of Misplaced Pages. Editors should not have to live under constant attack if they cross a group of experienced editors, no matter their POV. Whether the solution is blocking/bans (topic or general) for these harassing editors or blanket interaction bans is up to the ArbCom, but the status quo is not working.

Statement by Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Working with clueless anti-WP:FRINGE, anti-WP:NPOV anti-Consensus and anti-Misplaced Pages editors such as askahrc (talk · contribs) is very frustrating for all parties. We get that. People are imperfect, but we usually get there in the end. The WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality here is all coming from askahrc (talk · contribs). Believe it or not, I'd rather not be dealing with this sort of thing.

This is a clear violation of Askahrc (talk · contribs)'s topic ban from Rupert Sheldrake-related articles. That was given for a good reason; we do not need to go over them again; they are in the archives. Thus WP:BOOMERANG applies, and as a result of this clear violation, I unfortunately think a lengthy ban for Askahrc (talk · contribs) is necessary, and here is a good place to discuss how long that should be. I suggest indefinite which doesn't mean infinite. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by vzaak

  • As with Askahrc's last arbitration request and ANI, we are presented with a deluge of accusations lacking supporting evidence.
  • Two administrators concluded that Askahrc had been harassing users through an IP sockpuppet. As the SPI outlines, Askahrc was bullying editors while behind a sockpuppet as a prelude to bringing an arbcom case about editors being bullied.
  • In the ANI Askahrc initiated in February, I noticed that he cited an old IP troll from November, using it as evidence against others. That raised my suspicion, leading to the SPI and the finding that Askahrc was the IP in question.
  • Discovering the person who was harassing users constitutes harassment of the person who did the harassing?
  • Askahrc has been evincing a strong battleground mindset throughout. In the role-playing he did while sockpuppeting, Askahrc promoted a battleground atmosphere by disparaging and threatening editors. He has been writing polemics on his talk page against those he considers his opponents (e.g. ), for example he likens the ANI he brought against editors to a revolver.
  • Because Askahrc had cited his own sockpuppet in the ANI as evidence against others, and because there were additional concerns, I brought an AE case regarding the recent behavior after the SPI concluded (which was for old behavior). In the AE at least two administrators considered the evidence to be actionable, including the administrator who handled the SPI. However the AE was tabled due to lack of recent activity from Askahrc, along with a note that there is a "low bar" for reporting subsequent disruptions.
  • Regarding the second SPI, there is a good amount of evidence connecting Askahrc to the Ralph Abraham article, and the SPI was just a checkuser request. As the arbitration committee knows, I contacted the functionaries mailing list about the matter weeks before the SPI was filed, so the it wasn't "retaliation" for 76.107.171.90's AE. I wasn't even aware of the AE, as it occurred during my three-week wikibreak. In addition, I have made clear that I consider 76.107.171.90 to be a problem, and he seems to despise me.
  • There are many baseless WP:ASPERSIONS in Askahrc's overlong statement, and in a 500-word response only some can be addressed. I have not argued for "blocking dissent"; I have not suggested that Askahrc be blocked or "needs" to be blocked; I did not say that Askahrc was a "dangerous user"; I did not "accuse" Askahc in my response to Alison; I have not said there are "enemies" or "sides"; I have not engaged in WP:CANVASSING; the New Republic and other sites link to this statement I made, which is neutral and straightforward.
  • I covered the competence issue in the ANI, the epitome of which is the MOS:LQ matter which has been pointed out to Askahrc four times. The "fixing punctuation" Askahrc mentions was not a fix but a violation of LQ. As long as Askahrc continues to interpret a simple LQ correction as battleground or ownership behavior, there is little hope of getting across more complex guidelines and policies.
  • Askahrc was previously sanctioned for wasting the community's time.

vzaak 19:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Presumably the nominator would eventually have got round to letting me know about this.

I can sum this request up in a few words: "Boo-hoo, we didn't get what we wanted, let's go round the loop again in the hope we get a different answer".

The problem on the Sheldrake article (and the related article Deepak Chopra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is very simple. Misplaced Pages's policies do not permit uncritical coverage of fringe beliefs, the subjects of biographies of individuals who hold fringe beliefs often do not like that. They very often mobilise supporters to come to Misplaced Pages to demand changes. I could name a dozen articles that have been subject to offsite collusion, email campaigns and the like.

Our job is to patiently explain policy, firmly exclude those who refuse to accept policy, and to strive for an article which, if the subject can't bring themselves to like it, would at least look fair to an outside observer. Rupert Sheldrake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was, last time I looked at it, perfectly fair.

Unfortunately the subject disagrees and has taken it upon himself to accuse Misplaced Pages and the scientific community of science of some giant conspiracy to suppress his conjecture of "morphic resonance", based on the refusal of the scientific community to accept his conjecture without, you know, proof, and all that tiresome science stuff. He's written a book, The Science Delusiuon, which is an extended piece of special pleading along those lines.

It's been going on for a long time, the article should probably be under discretionary sanctions if it's not already - I don't know because it's at least a couple of months since I even looked at it or its talk page.

Similarly, I am unaware of any active attempt at dispute resolution. It's a simple matter of WP:FORUMSHOP until you get the answer you want, or get banned, IMO. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {Party}

Clerk notes

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

Battleground Off of Rupert Sheldrake: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0>

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

Arzel

Initiated by Casprings (talk) at 17:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Casprings

During an WP:RFC/U, there was significant disagreement regarding the behavior of Arzel and other editors who took part in the WP:RFC/U. The pages in the WP:RFC/U largely relate to American Politics in general and not the Tea Party Movement, which there has been an Arbitration case on.

In the dispute, some editors believe that Arzel acts on the belief that Misplaced Pages reflects a "liberal bias". He thinks that mainstream media and academic writing reflect this bias and tries to correct that, by balancing "liberal" views with "conservative" ones. However, that is contrary to the policy of neutrality, which requires views to be presented "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Many editors believe that he has shown WP:Battleground behavior in correcting these perceived biases.

On the other hand, some editors feel that the RFC itself is an example of battleground behavior. They believe the RFC is supported by numerous left-leaning editors due to their objections to the right-leaning editor disagreeing with edits they make that largely favor their left-leaning views. They argue that there is a group of partisan editors objecting to another editor impeding their efforts to make Misplaced Pages articles more partisan.

I request the Committee look at this dispute and help to resolve it. This could include sanctions on either side of the dispute, interaction bans or other remedies.

@Seraphimblade I would give two reasons why this requires a full Arbitration. The first is the topics of the pages covered in the RFC relate to American Politics, not a sub-category. While it was a quick look at the pages linked in the RFC, I did not see any pages that directly involved The Tea Party Movement. Second, this is a dispute that is persistent and will not be solved by the parties involved. If one looks at the discussion involving a suggested close, this has been the state of the dispute for years now. This seems to be the type of dispute that the arbitration committee was designed to look at.

@Robert McClenon : The dispute is more complicated than between two editors. The original title of this was WP:RFC/U on Arzel not the user himself. If, there is use of battleground behavior by editors to go after Arzel, that should be looked at. Likewise, if there is battleground behavior to protect Arzel, that should be looked at. If one looks at the WP:RFC/U, it is clearly divided into two camps. This is more complicated than you imply.

@Robert McClenon I am trying to be neutral in describing the dispute. I am also trying not to suggest solutions. I would assume one would want to look at the dispute first and then find solutions.

@SalvioI don't grasp that this is not "ripe". The basic framework of the dispute has a long history. Arzel's conduct has been questioned in the past and one group of editors has an issue and the other group defends him. For example,1, 2,3, 4,5 . Many of the same editors (including myself), have took part in these previous disputes. This is long-term and is more than simply the editors conduct. If it was the editors conduct, one could just suggest a topic ban. However, if the community is divided into two groups over the conduct, that becomes difficult.

Statement by Goethean

AGK's statement is puzzling, as Arzel was an involved party to the Tea Party Movement case, but avoided sanctions. Arzel undoubtedly sees that outcome as vindicating his behavior.

Outside View by Robert McClenon

I don't have a clue what Casprings is asking the ArbCom to do. The ArbCom has the power to ban Arzel. I don't think that is in order. I disagree with Arzel and think that he is a biased right-wing editor, but he is no more biased than some other right-wing editors. The ArbCom has the power to impose topic bans or interaction bans on Arzel. In the RFC, I didn't see any identification of any particular editing restrictions that would be appropriate. I agree with AGK and disagree with Goethean as to the Tea Party Movement. Arzel was not sanctioned, but the area was put under discretionary sanctions, so that if Arzel blanks any sources that he dislikes (possibly because they criticize the TPM), he can be sanctioned. It is true that Arzel's controversial edits have gone beyond the TPM to American politics in general, but Casprings doesn't propose a remedy. I would ask the ArbCom to delay a decision on whether to accept or decline for two or three days and give Casprings a chance to explain exactly what he or she is asking the ArbCom to do about or to Arzel. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Update

Based on the most recent statement by Casprings, it appears that the real problem is the Casprings and Arzel do not like each other. If any action is to be taken, it should be an interaction ban. I disagree with Arzel's view that biased sources should not be used at all. They can be used as to reliable content by filtering out their bias. Because he has a habit of deleting such information, the purpose of the user conduct RFC, Arzel is a biased right-wing editor, but he is no more biased than other biased editors who are allowed to edit. Misplaced Pages can deal with editors like Arzel by discussing and reverting their deletions. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

If there were a more effective ArbCom, I would recommend that this case be taken for the purpose of an interaction ban. I do not think that the "community" at the noticeboards does well at dealing with such conflicts. However, it appears that the current ArbCom does not do well at dealing with contentious areas (which is its purpose) either. I do not want to see this case further delay the adjudication of real issues such as gun control or Austrian economics, or any such real future areas. Due to the inability of the ArbCom to deal with cases in a timely manner, declining this case is the least undesirable action. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Further Update

I still don't understand what Casprings wants. He or she is clearly more optimistic about the ability of the current ArbCom to deal with a poorly stated case, in which the filing party gives very little clue as to why a case is required, than I do. I concur with User:Collect that an interaction ban would be in order. If the ArbCom had a record of timely action in 2014, I would suggest that the ArbCom do this by motion. As it is, I still recommend a decline. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Arzel

Since this has been repeated a number of times now by Casprings, perhaps they can provide some links showing me trying to balance out liberal sources with conservative sources. I have stated several times that I don't think clearly biased sources should be used at all. I have tried to keep the articles I have been involved with largely free of partisan sniping. Hell, I have recently been trying to keep rumors out of Scarlett Johansson's bio and she is hardly a conservative. As for the TPM, I am really not seeing the connection there as I have not made an edit to that article for several months. I am getting a little tired of this.

IBAN

I don't think this is what Casprings is after, and I am not even sure it is necessary. I haven't initiated any contact with Casprings in several months. I think my only interaction with them has been via the drama boards where they initiated contact with me. However, I will voluntarily pledge to continue to not initiate any contact with them, I can't promise that they won't continue to initiate contact with me though. Arzel (talk) 03:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

If one uses an analogy of fruit ripening to the concept of a case for arbitration ripening, this case is barely at the pollination stage. It appears far more likely to benefit the community and to reduce drama board usage to IBAN Arzel and Casprings at this point, and the TPM bit has naught to do with their apparent grating on each other. An IBAN should be worded in a neutral manner, making no assignment of blame, but simply to facilitate more orderly discussions either editor. Collect (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by North8000

I think blameless disengagement between the two would be in order. Beyond an iban because it appears that other normally exempted venues have also been the arenas. North8000 (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent

I don't see there being a case here. The fact that some editors on Misplaced Pages don't like other editors is neither new nor exceptional, nor is it required for folks to collaborate. The filer tried to make the case at the RFC/U and failed to get a clear consensus.

I am disappointed the phrasing of the first two committee declines seem to assume misconduct on the part of Arzel in stating they should be dealt with by enforcement of existing discretionary sanctions. NE Ent 11:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by MrX

I am listed as a party to this case, presumably because I created the RFC/U. At the heart of this case is a user's editing conduct and interactions with other editors which are well documented in his editing history, with specific examples listed at the RFC/U. I reject any theory that this case is about some people not liking other people; people simply taking sides in a political dispute; or personal biases.

As far as I understand, this is exactly the type of case that should be arbitrated. This is a user conduct issue at its core. All other avenues of resolution have failed and the community is deadlocked, leading us to this venue of last resort. The case is broader than TPM because it encompasses American politics, biographies, Fox News, global warming, civil rights, football, reality TV, etc. I don't see how AE can address these long term issues that fall outside of the scope of the TPM case.- MrX 18:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arzel: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/1/0/4>-Arzel-2014-04-03T22:14:00.000Z">

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

  • The complaints made at the RFC relate to Arzel's conduct on pages the committee have already arbitrated. Remedies from our earlier decision can therefore be used if Arzel's conduct is continually and significantly disruptive: the complainant should simply request at WP:AE that Arzel be topic-banned under the discretionary sanctions of Tea Party movement. In my judgement, we do not require an arbitration case to recover old ground. Decline. AGK 22:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)"> ">
  • As for the conduct on pages not under the scope of Tea Party movement, I do not agree it requires an arbitration case. There simply isn't anything there that the community can't resolve and that requires a full committee hearing. AGK 21:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)