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 00:13, 12 February 2011 view sourceX! (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators23,642 edits →Clerk notes: cmt← Previous edit Revision as of 01:29, 12 February 2011 view source Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,488 edits →Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/0/1/1): comment, tally unchangedNext edit →
Line 116: Line 116:
*'''Recuse'''. ] (]) 23:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC) *'''Recuse'''. ] (]) 23:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
*Awaiting statements. It is possible that there are user-conduct issues, bearing in mind that the conduct of all parties, including the filing party, is examined. Probably they are not issues rising to the level of arbitration, but it would be best to have the statements first before we rule it out. Lastly, the language used in Lsorin's framing of the dispute&mdash;"breaking several laws, in pure defamation of the memory of a reputed scientist"&mdash;is of a type that should be avoided (see ]). ] (]) 23:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC) *Awaiting statements. It is possible that there are user-conduct issues, bearing in mind that the conduct of all parties, including the filing party, is examined. Probably they are not issues rising to the level of arbitration, but it would be best to have the statements first before we rule it out. Lastly, the language used in Lsorin's framing of the dispute&mdash;"breaking several laws, in pure defamation of the memory of a reputed scientist"&mdash;is of a type that should be avoided (see ]). ] (]) 23:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
**Like a couple of the commenters, I am surprised that we are on the verge of accepting the case; for one thing, I am not seeing the prior attempts at dispute resolution that we would normally require. I hesitate to cast a "decline" vote only because I fear I may be missing something, but if so I'd appreciate someone pointing me to it. ] (]) 01:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
*Accept. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 00:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC) *Accept. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 00:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
*'''Accept''' per Newyorkbrad. ] (]) 07:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC) *'''Accept''' per Newyorkbrad. ] (]) 07:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:29, 12 February 2011

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Henri Coanda defamation   9 February 2011 {{{votes}}}
Monty Hall problem   9 February 2011 {{{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 10 January 2025

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.

Henri Coanda defamation

Initiated by Lsorin (talk) at 21:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Andy Dingley
  • Binksternet
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Andy Dingley is openly declaring Henri Coanda a liar breaking several laws, in pure defamation of the memory of a reputed scientist.
  • Lsorin asked Andy Dingley to fill the mainstream regarding Coanda-1910
  • Lsorin asked Binksternet to fill the mainstream regarding Coanda-1910
  • Lsorin opened is several rounds discussions regarding the mainstream regarding Coanda
  • Binksternet used polling to support his bias against Misplaced Pages recommendations Polling is not a substitute for discussion
  • Lsorin is unable to edit Coanda-1910 with any new relevant references, as the owner Andy Dingley is using the WP:EW against any try to open the discussion.
  • Lsorin tried in several ways to get attention on the matter but was unable to reach the arbcom for mediation User:Lsorin

Statement by Lsorin

The main problem is about the introduction of the Coanda-1910 article. Henri Coandă's airplane from 1910 was the first jet-propelled aircraft in the world. This statement is supported by the majority of the sources present today in specialized media.

Sources according to WP:IRS

  • Secondary Souces
    • Academic
- [http://books.google.com/books?ei=Ud_yTM_DF8yWOobw1KoK&ct=result&id=CYpTAAAAMAAJ&dq=coanda-1910+proceedings&q=coanda-1910#search_anchor History of rocketry and astronautics:

proceedings of the twenty-fourth Symposium of the International Academy of Astronautics, Dresden, Germany, 1990]

- [http://books.google.com/books?ei=Ud_yTM_DF8yWOobw1KoK&ct=result&id=9odTAAAAMAAJ&dq=coanda-1910+proceedings&q=coanda-1910#search_anchor History of rocketry and astronautics:

proceedings of the Seventeenth History Symposium of the International Academy of Astronautics, Budapest, Hungary, 1991]

-Romanian Academy
-Royal Aeronautical Society
    • Scholarship
      • Monographs
        • Books
Dan Antoniu, 2010 Henri Coanda and his technical work during 1906-1918.
Stine, G. Harry, 1983 The Hopeful Future.
V.Firoiu, 2002 Din nou acasa
Gibbs-Smith, C. 1970 Aviation: an historical survey from its origins to the end of World War II.

(According to the rule generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars Gibbs-Smith can be considered as it was endorsed by Antoniu but caution as it is considered to contain speculations on evidence of absence and using incorrect sources.)

    • News organizations
      • Magazines
Sandachi, George-Paul, 2010 , several "Cer Senin" magazines
Walter J. Boyne, 2006 -The Converging Paths of Whittle and von Ohain, A Concise History of Jet Propulsion
G. Harry Stine , 1989 - The Rises and Falls of Henri-Marie Coanda
Gérard Harmann , 2007 - Clément-Bayard, sans peur et sans reproche
Frank H. Winter , 1980 Ducted fan or the world's first jet plane? The Coanda claim re-examined

As per WP:IRS if the secondary sources are conflicting or they give biased positions ( as an example Antoniu vs Gibbs-Smith ) the primary sources can be used.

  • Primary Sources
    • 1) articles written by Coanda himself in 50s and 60s is several magazines
    • 2) articles,leaflets, books from very close to the event ( newspapers like "Le Temps", "Le Figaro", books Bases et methodes d'etudes aerotechniques - Leon Ventou-Duclaux )
    • 3) persons Victor Hoart "L'Histoire de l'aviation recontée à mon fils."
    • 4) several museums around the world in Romania, England, France, USA, Germany.
    • 5) patents
  • Tertiary sources

Several major encyclopedias: Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation, World Encyclopedia, American Encyclopedia etc Special events: coins, stamps, exhibitions Institutions bearing his name with special emphasis on the first jet-propelled aircraft.

In the past, the fact above was contested by Gibbs-Smith and more recently his former NAMS office colleague, the freelancer writer Frank H. Winter.

Statement by Andy Dingley

I cannot really give a better description of this situation than I already did at WP:ANI/3RR

There are two issues here, content and behaviour.

The content reduces to one crucial point: Lsorin's repeated addition of the text, "The Coandă-1910 was the first jet-propelled aircraft." In particular, placing this in the lead paragraph of the article. This is quite unwarranted. Without investigating the details of an unclear content issue too far, there are four or five "first jet aircraft" with some claim to the title, depending on one's definition of "jet". Neutrality requires us to recognise the existence of these claims and to discuss them, but such an absolutist "this was the first" statement is quite out of place for this aircraft (only the Heinkel He 178 is really credible).

Despite appearances, There is really little serious disagreement with almost anything Lsorin claims. The sometimes wishy-washy WP:NPOV means that most editors concede the need to include and discuss all of the claims, even the outlandish and unsubstantiable claims by Coanda in the 1950s, whether individual editors believe a word of them or not. Yet Lsorin refuses to drop this extreme single viewpoint of absolute primacy. The evidence, whatever the actuality, is just too conflicted to ever support such a simply-stated claim.

As to behaviour, then those interested can read the logs. The only point I'd make is that he has just returned from a two week block and his next reaction was to construct what can only be seen as a personalised attack page at user:Lsorin. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Binksternet

This is either a content issue which should not be dealt with here or it is an issue of the continuation of tendentious editing by one unsatisfied user who was unable to achieve consensus with his preferred version.

I'm very proud of my work at Coandă-1910. It was among the most difficult tasks I have undertaken on Misplaced Pages, more difficult than my two FAs. I made a number of trips to the local university library and I learned a lot about the subject. The article is currently waiting for its Good Article review now a WP:Good Article. Lsorin helped make the article as good as it is, adding important content, but he did not make it easy on other editors. He and some anonymous editors from IP addresses based in Romania kept reverting the constructive work being done by a handful of veteran editors from the Aviation project, which kept tabs on the progress and helped achieve a neutral stance, one that deftly straddles deeply divided expert sources. As a content issue, I consider this matter closed. As a behavior issue, I am willing to expand on my thoughts if the case is accepted. Binksternet (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Fut.Perf.

I gave Lsorin a final warning against tendentious editing some time last month, after he had been blocked by another admin for edit-warring. As far as I can see, this is just the case of a single user having persistently pushed an agenda against consensus, who is now in the process of climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman because they couldn't get their way. This can be further handled on the community and admin level. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm frankly surprised so many arbs are voting accept. Just in case I wasn't clear enough: this case is unnecessary and will be a waste of time. The issue is successfully being handled by simple admin intervention. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Nimbus227

I have watched this article for six months or more, the size of the talk page archive is staggering. I was asked to review it for Good Article status, realising that there were stability problems I preferred to highlight minor problems on the talk page, which were mostly addressed. At the time that I reviewed it the article was well balanced with both sides of the argument being presented. I saw no user conduct problems from the 'accused' editors, indeed they had done a very good job compared with earlier versions of the article and I said so.

It seems to me that undue nationalistic importance is being attached to the claimed achievements of this man and his machine. The name Coanda means very little to me, as an aviation information 'sponge' for over 40 years it should mean more according to views in this article but it doesn't. I'm quite proud of being able to stay neutral, if the Germans beat the Brits in to the air with jet propulsion then I can live with that as it's a fact! I have been careful not to add any opinion or bias but as an aircraft engineer and pilot of not dissimilar machines I have grave doubts about its ability to even move under its own power as it was designed.

I don't know where it will end, perhaps arbitration will focus some new minds on the matter if the case is taken on. It appears to be a one-sided content dispute. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

RfCs and various other avenues have been tried and exhausted to my knowledge, it would be necessary to trawl through the talk page archive to find the links. I asked for an RfC to be closed before considering a Good Article review, it was. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Cube lurker

How do we have arbitrators accepting per NYB when he hasn't accepted and says of the request "Probably they are not issues rising to the level of arbitration"?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/0/1/1)

Monty Hall problem

Initiated by Rick Block (talk) at 06:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Statement by Rick Block

I respectfully request arbcom intervene in the long running dispute involving Monty Hall problem. The dispute has been through all previous steps of dispute resolution culminating in on-again, off-again formal mediation for more than a year (since January 14, 2010). The first mediator to take the case resigned. Subsequently a pair of mediators jointly attempted to handle the case and one of these mediators has resigned. Several parties to the mediation have "quit" the mediation as well. The mediation has effectively been on hold since at least December 22, 2010 with the most recent communication from the mediators (on January 24th) being "please hold on, we're talking about what to do" .

Although more than one of the involved editors have exhibited problematic behaviors, one editor in particular exhibits nearly all the classic signs of disruptive editing and has essentially singlehandedly prevented any progress from being made. This user is a self-admitted SPA , subject of a previous RFC, with a history of:

This editor will (of course) cast me as the bad guy here, and although I admit I have made an occasional intemperate comment under extreme and relentless provocation (e.g. ), I trust arbcom will see things much more the way I do than the way he does. My request is for arbcom to accept this case, consider the evidence that will be provided, and take appropriate action.

Statement by Glkanter

I certainly agree that mediation has failed. Badly. I welcome the next step in the Misplaced Pages resolution process. Of course, I disagree that Glkanter is the cause of the protracted disputes and lack of progress. Rather, I have brought important and beneficial edits to the article, and needed clarity to the discussions.

It's kinda funny that this was brought forward on February 9th, 2011. Here's what I posted on the MHP talk page, on February 7, 2009 under the heading of "Conventional Wisdom". I have subsequently learned about 'reliable sources', so I have revised my estimate upwards from 5% to 10% regarding, "Yes, I look at this entire article, excepting maybe 5% of it, as an elaborate hoax."

So, it's taken precisely 2 years and 2 days since then to get to this point. Well, we're here now. Let's get this party started, finally. Let's once and for all clear out the nonsense & noise from certain Misplaced Pages-Policy-violating-editors, and get the article where it needs to be. Glkanter (talk) 08:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

For a sense of what I encountered when I first entered these discussion, this was the state of the MHP article when I made my first edit to the article. Note the following:

"The overall probability of winning by switching is determined by the location of the car."
I deleted that sentence as my 1st ever Misplaced Pages article edit.
  • The Solution section contains an unattributed explanation of a 'simple solution'
  • The image that 'supports' this 'simple solution' is now in the current version of the article, supporting the 'formal conditional' solutions. That's perverse.
  • Morgan, whose claim to fame is that they call the simple solutions, 'false', is in some way used as the 'reliable source' for the above 'simple' solution that starts that Solution section. That's perverse.

Posted by Glkanter (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that didn't take long at all. If this arbitration is going to be about the behaviour of an editor(s), let's make sure we're properly focused.

Nijdam's posting makes very clear 2 of the Misplaced Pages policy/guideline violations I have contended with for over 2 years:
He regards me, and my edits to the article, as not 'serious'
His insistence on his POV being prominent in the article (as it is currently) is *not* based on any reliable sources. His statement is pure OR. I am not aware of his ever referring to reliable sources, other than to demean them.
Which brings us to the editor who filed this arbitration request, Rick Block:
Rick Block is an Admin
Rick Block has never once, not a single time, addressed a comment to his MHP-ally Nijdam regarding the above items
Rick Block has made plenty of comments to Glkanter, and complaints to mediators, regarding Glkanter's behaviour and Glkanter's inability to 'understand' the reliable sources as he does. Rick Block even filed an RfC against Glkanter for a talk page skirmish in which he was not involved.

This is a small representation of the Gamesmanship, etc. I have been accusing Rick Block and Nijdam of perpetuating during talk page discussions, edit warring, and the mediation. Apparently, this Gamesmanship, Wikilawyering, and reliance on OR, will continue into arbitration, if allowed to do so. Accordingly, I will continue to make fact-based statements as to its existence. Glkanter (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Nijdam

The main point of the discussion is which of the following two formulations of the MHP has to be considered the standard or mostly accepted version.

F0: (Conditional formulation) The contestant is offered to switch after the host has opened the goat door.
F1: (Unconditional formulation) We, the audience, are asked whether the contestant should switch, even before she has made her initial choice, and we are not allowed to give a solution for every possible combination of initial chosen door and opened goat door.

Then there is a minor discussion about the correct solution. These are:

S0: (Conditional solution) The player has to base her decision on the conditional probability given the chosen and the opened door.
S1: (Simple solution) The player hits the car in her first choice with probability 1/3, hence when she always switches she gets the car in 2/3 of the cases.

In the following I do not account for Glkanter, whom I do not take seriously. From the other parties all except Martin Hogbin understand that F0 is solved by S0 and F1 is solved by S1, and that S1 does not solve F0. As for the main point of discussion it is Gill and Hogbin who strongly defend F1 to be the standard version. The others take F0 to be the standard, mostly accepted version.

If I'm wrong about the opinion of one of the parties, I hope he will correct me. Nijdam (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Richard Gill

Since I've taken to writing reliable sources on MHP, I can hardly be allowed to be a major participant in editing the MHP page in the near future. For the rest, I just want to remark that I do not accept Nijdam's representation of my own point of view (nor indeed his representation of the mediation issue). Richard Gill (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Alanyst

To expedite the arbitration process I propose the following:

  1. The evidence and workshop phases are skipped.
  2. The arbitration committee drafts offwiki and encrypts three proposed decisions and accompanying sanctions. Two of these are extraordinarily harsh towards the parties, and one is extraordinarily lenient.
  3. The parties collectively choose one of the encrypted decisions to apply to them. The committee then reveals the text of one of the remaining harsh decisions and asks the parties to collectively decide whether to switch their decision to the remaining unrevealed decision.
  4. Space and time collapse into an ironic self-referential loop and the arbitration committee and the rest of us taste the sweet peace of oblivion.

I cannot see how this can possibly go wrong. alanyst 15:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I've just fallen in love. --jpgordon 18:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's the problem, Alanyst. I'm ready to decide to switch now. Or after we've chosen one of the three decisions/sanctions. Or anytime, really. Other editors will *insist* we wait until after a harsh decision/sanction has actually been revealed, before we can make our decision. But you've already given me the rules. I'm a thinking, sentient being, why *can't* I decide at some point in advance? Plenty of reliably sourced teams of editors make the decision without regard for *which* harsh decision/sanction is revealed.
By the way, will the decision/sanctions be assigned random #s in order to eliminate confusion and ambiguity? And if we select the lenient decision/sanction, how will the arbitrators decide which harsh decision/sanction to reveal? Will they choose 'uniformly at random? Will they have a bias towards one or the other? Will they share this bias with the MHP editors? This is mighty important, don't you know? Glkanter (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Bravo. AGK 23:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
How is this different from usual? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Are the two harsh proposals going to be both equally harsh against all parties, or maybe each against a different set? I'm just wondering whether it would be possible to spice the process up with just a hint of prisoner's dilemma or something of that sort. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by kibbitzer Wehwalt

I see no solution to this case which does not involved the Arbitration Committee going on the show. After all, they probably won't need to get costumes ... just sayin'.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • I was involved in my capacity as a member of MedCom with this case whilst it was at formal mediation, so I recuse from all clerking activities relating to this dispute. AGK 23:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (14/0/0/0)