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 14:36, 15 November 2023 view sourceGhostOfDanGurney (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,826 edits →Statement by {Non-party}: +, would decline← Previous edit Revision as of 14:51, 15 November 2023 view source Austronesier (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers26,098 edits →Statement by {Non-party}Next edit →
Line 45: Line 45:
=== Statement by GhostOfDanGurney === === Statement by GhostOfDanGurney ===
Seconding Deepfriedokra that this feels more like an ] request rather than an ARBCOM filing. The community can definitely still handle this. &#8213;<span style="background:#368ec9;border:solid 2px;border-radius:5px">&nbsp;''''']'''''&nbsp;</span> 14:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC) Seconding Deepfriedokra that this feels more like an ] request rather than an ARBCOM filing. The community can definitely still handle this. &#8213;<span style="background:#368ec9;border:solid 2px;border-radius:5px">&nbsp;''''']'''''&nbsp;</span> 14:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

=== Statement by ] ===
I have witnessed the discussion in ] for a while, but have remained silent so far. Trigered by this (IMO frivolous) report, here's my 2 pennies on the matter:

@{{u|Crash48}}'s latest diff from 13 Nov is ] based on primary sources. It's as simple as that. They have repeatedly stated that primary sources are allowed in WP, but they fail to see that a) the inclusion of primary sources should not introduce ]; due weight is established by consulting secondary sources, and in some cases also by consensus alone, however not by saying "this source is reliable, period"; and b) primary sources must ''never'' be used to support a statement that draws a ''conclusion'' from these sources; in this case, the statement about terminological usage {{tq|"instead, the language was usually named ''Ruthenian'' or ''Little Russian''"}} is solely supported by primary sources that serve as ''attestations''; this is a no-go by basic WP policies, ''unless'' a secondary source draws the same conclusion based on the same or similar primary material; in this case, we cite the secondary source for ], while primary sources maximally can serve as illustrative material (again considering due weight, as supported by secondary sources. The fact that the filer tried to re-add the OR-laden text after @{{u|Rsk6400}}'s revert makes this report look like a ] to me.

The only problematic part on @Rsk6400's part is 2RR:. Multiple reverts never solve a problem in a contentious topic area. –] (]) 14:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


=== Statement by {Non-party} === === Statement by {Non-party} ===

Revision as of 14:51, 15 November 2023

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.

Shortcut

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Ukrainian language   15 November 2023 0/0/0
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.

Ukrainian language

Initiated by Crash48 (talk) at 13:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed parties

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

Statement by Crash48

In September 2023, I added into Ukrainian language an outline of how and when the language ceased to be called Little Russian, and started to be called Ukrainian.

Rsk6400 reverted all mentions of Little Russian as the language's name, while allowing the mentions of Ukrainian to remain in the article. His stated reason for this was that "Little Russian is an imperialist name, intended to suppress Ukrainian identity". Abundant references such as https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ukrainian-language demonstrating that Little Russian used to be the language's primary name worldwide couldn't change Rsk6400's mind on including the name in the Misplaced Pages article.

In a discussion that followed, User:Mzajac formulated his and Rsk6400's attitude even more clearly: "Little Russian is currently a weapon wielded directly in a genocidal war by its main instigator. Whatever its historical status has been, is normalizing it and perpetuating colonial violence." This, and other statements of Mzajac at the article talk page, e.g. disallowing citations from "imperialist" authors, are such an outright statement of WP:RGW that I took this case to WP:NPOV/N. The only new participant from the noticeboard, User:Dege31, supported mentioning Little Russian in the article as the historic name of the language. Rsk6400 agreed to mentioning Little Russian as long as a "context" is added.

On Sep 22nd, Rsk6400 added a "context" to the article to his satisfaction. On Oct 29th, I pinged him asking whether there are still any objections against reinstating the references for the uses of the "colonial" name in notable 19th century works by notable Ukrainian authors, in Russian Empire as well as outside. Receiving no response in two weeks, I reinstated the references on Nov 13th, to be promptly reverted by Rsk6400 with a message saying "You have no consensus for that."

Rsk6400 refuses to elaborate on his remaining objections against citations using the historic name, and in particular, my question addressed to him on the article talk page, dated Oct 29th, remains unanswered to this day.

I request that Rsk6400's behaviour be reprimanded as POV-pushing, and the historical references using the Little Russian language name to be reinstated in the article.

Statement by Rsk6400

Statement by deepfriedokra

@Crash48: This probably needs to be hashed out at WP:ANI instead of here, and I note that this falls into Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics/Balkans or Eastern Europe, where ArbCom has already adopted a special set of rules. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC).

This feels mostly like a content dispute, which needs WP:dispute resolution . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Statement by GhostOfDanGurney

Seconding Deepfriedokra that this feels more like an ANI request rather than an ARBCOM filing. The community can definitely still handle this. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Statement by User:Austronesier

I have witnessed the discussion in Ukranian language for a while, but have remained silent so far. Trigered by this (IMO frivolous) report, here's my 2 pennies on the matter:

@Crash48's latest diff from 13 Nov is WP:OR based on primary sources. It's as simple as that. They have repeatedly stated that primary sources are allowed in WP, but they fail to see that a) the inclusion of primary sources should not introduce WP:undue weight; due weight is established by consulting secondary sources, and in some cases also by consensus alone, however not by saying "this source is reliable, period"; and b) primary sources must never be used to support a statement that draws a conclusion from these sources; in this case, the statement about terminological usage "instead, the language was usually named Ruthenian or Little Russian" is solely supported by primary sources that serve as attestations; this is a no-go by basic WP policies, unless a secondary source draws the same conclusion based on the same or similar primary material; in this case, we cite the secondary source for WP:verifiability, while primary sources maximally can serve as illustrative material (again considering due weight, as supported by secondary sources. The fact that the filer tried to re-add the OR-laden text after @Rsk6400's revert makes this report look like a WP:BOOMERANG to me.

The only problematic part on @Rsk6400's part is 2RR:. Multiple reverts never solve a problem in a contentious topic area. –Austronesier (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2023 (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.

Ukrainian language: Clerk notes

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

Ukrainian language: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>-Ukrainian_language">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)