Revision as of 20:40, 14 August 2011

• 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.

Requests for arbitration

Senkaku Islands

Initiated by Qwyrxian (talk) at 09:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Qwyrxian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Tenmei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bobthefish2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• STSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lvhis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Oda Mari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Phoenix7777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• John Smith's (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Benlisquare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Penwhale (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Feezo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Tenmei
• Bobthefish2
• STSC
• Lvhis
• Oda Mari
• Phoenix7777
• John Smith's
• Benlisquare
• Penwhale
• Feezo
• Magog the Ogre

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• See below in Statement by Qwyrxian

Statement by Qwyrxian

Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute have been the subject of dispute as far back as 2003 (See Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 1). Senkaku Islands has been protected 5 times, including twice in the past year, and is currently fully protected. Senkaku Islands dispute has been protected 5 times since its creation in October 2010, and is currently fully protected. The issues being debated range from individual word and grammatical choices, to identifying and interpreting RS's, to overall organization. One of the most persistent arguments revolves around the article title itself. The page has been moved unilaterally several times (see page logs), but was moved back each time. Various steps of dispute resolution have been taken; none have succeeding in ending the disputes. Specifically:

• July 2007—Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 3#Requested move: Request to move to "Pinnacle Islands".
• September 2010—Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 3#Requested move 2: Request to move to "Pinnacle Islands".
• November 2010—Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 6#What should the title of this article be?: RfC on the article title.
• May – July 2011—Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands: MedCom mediation.

Also, issues relating to these pages have been raised on noticeboards and Wikitalk pages, including WP:NORN (Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 15#Figure captions in Senkaku Island/Diaoyutai article), WP:NPOVN (Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 20#Long running dispute on Senkaku Islands dispute), WP:ANI (Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive8#Senkaku Islands stolen?, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive644#Senkaku Islands dispute, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive712#Senkaku Islands - admin COI intervention), WT:NCGN (4 discussions, see search results), and possibly others.

The aforementioned Mediation failed. It closed after numerous editors were unable to behave and stay on topic; eventually, several editors abandoned mediation and it closed without any useful result. These behavioral problems have been rampant on the article talk pages and related user talk pages since 2010. Some editors have held that no matter what consensus says, the current article title will never be acceptable. Others have used baiting and borderline personal attacks. Others overwhelm the talk page with extremely complex and nearly impossible to follow philosophical arguments and graphics. One editor was taken to WQA for xyr behaviors on these pages (Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance/archive99#User:Bobthefish2); another was the subject of an RFC/U (Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Tenmei). While in the past I had hoped to use the DR process to solve our problems, I have come to believe that until the behavioral problems are corrected, we will be unable to make constructive progress on the article content.

Finally, I would like to state that I am aware of the fact that ArbCom does not rule on content; however, if the committee accepts this case, and has any suggestions about how to settle the naming issue such as a binding RfC, a site-wide vote as happened for Liancourt Rocks, etc., input would be appreciated. The name has been one of the sticking points that keeps us from progressing on to actual article improvement, and so a lasting solution is highly desirable.

Statement by Ajl772

Technically speaking, I should have been notified as well, since I was involved (albeit briefly) in attempting to get to some sort of dispute resolution running (specifically by filing a MedCom request). However I withdrew from that for various reasons, which I will list at a later time, as well as providing a statement, which will be included in this section (but for now, I need to sleep). – AJL 10:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Magog the Ogre

Pardon me if I get any of this wrong... never filed an RFAr request before. Hopefully I don't miss anything important.

I entered the dispute through WP:AN3, a board which at times I frequent as a deciding admin. Since then, Senkaku Islands dispute has been subject to numerous locks , and Senkaku Islands has been on indefinite protection . The page has gone through failed RFCs, a mediation, and requests at ANI to help, not to mention numerous pleas on my talk page surrounding the issue (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13).

At a few times, I may not have given the issue the proper consideration it was due (cf. 2, where I was a bit unnecessarily rude about it as well). Nevertheless, I have done what's in my power to try to further the resolution in a way amenable to all parties. Recently, I took the unorthodox step of placing Senkaku Islands dispute on mandatory WP:BRD watch - any party breaking BRD would be subject to a block. This was an unusual step, granted, but it was a last ditch effort on my part to come up with a solution short of indefinite full-protection and/or Arbcom intervention (oh, and it did have community support!).

Nevertheless, it has not worked. Since, it has been quite clear to me that:

• All attempts at dispute resolution will continue to fail, as parties have and will continue to talk right past each other.
• None of the players in the dispute has been acting poorly in an overt enough fashion that the community would support bans/blocks for any one deed, or even for behavior as a whole without an Arbcom ruling.
• Certain figures have been acting in ways that has inflamed rather than alleviated the dispute.
• The situation would be helped greatly and possibly solved altogether with the censure of non-helpful parties in a way which Arbcom can accomplish, but which the community at large cannot. "Cast out the scorner, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease."

On the case of figures acting poorly: in the past, I have called out specifically two editors:

• User:Tenmei for his unnecessarily loquaciousness, which I believe has often been used (unintentionally) to cover up a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I also believe Tenmei exhibits a severe case of m:MPOV, and possibly a lack of necessary WP:COMPETENCE (it is hurtful, and it pains me to say, but I have no other explanation).
• I have also called out User:Bobthefish2 for what I believe to be a desire to do nothing but troll and cause controversy. At every step of the way, his actions have seemed tailored to cause more strife, not less. Examples can be provided should Arbcom accept this case.
• It is important to note that these are not the only editors I have seen problems from; these are simply the two I have dealt with the most, and most recently.

Finally, I would like to echo Qwyrxian's statement that Arbcom does not, and should not, rule directly on content (this is kind of important, in light of a careless comment I made which was copied and mailed to the Arbcom list, a comment which I was completely incorrect in making). However, some rules/guidelines for conduct and censure of the bad apples from Arbcom would be quite helpful. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by John Smith's

It's a shame to see the matter go to arbitration, but I had a feeling that it would. Although I haven't withdrawn from the discussions on the relevant talk pages, I've been so baffled by some discussions or disheartened by the lack of ability to agree on almost anything that I have contributed less than I used to. There is a problem that clearly can't be resolved without either:

a) mass community input from uninvolved editors that reaches "inviolable consensus"; or
b) sanctions and/or decisions on particular users that could allow the remainder to make progress

We have tried to get outside views, but no editors are willing to stick around and help move things forward. Which is understandable, and Misplaced Pages can't force people to come along to resolve problems. I also think that we've also got to the point where if action isn't taken, tensions could rise and more bitter actions take place that would be unfortunate. Sometimes prevention is better than cure, so I hope that the Arbitration Committee looks at this as an opportunity to stop escalation and having to hand out more severe sanctions later. John Smith's (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Tenmei

Qwyrxian's open-ended request for ArbCom's help is a kind of trick question which resists closer examination. In our context of squandered opportunities, it is timely for ArbCom to acknowledge broader issues which are not made explicit.

• More awareness of a growing issue that is poisoning the very essence of collaborative editing that makes Misplaced Pages possible: real-world factions that vie for control over articles, turning them into polemical battlegrounds where surface civility is used to cover bias, tendentiousness and even harassment.

Opportunity: ArbCom could choose to take a strong stance against that sort of "polite disruption" and those who use our rules of civility as weapons, recognize that long-term warriors are toxic, not vested, and investigate beyond surface behavior issues.

• Less timidity in addressing issues related to contents (POV warring, tag teams, academic dishonesty).

Opportunity: ArbCom could choose to be more active at curtailing content disputes. Academic integrity should become a priority; unlike "simple" incivility, the damage caused by editors misquoting, plagiarizing and editorializing destroys the credibility of our encyclopedia.

• Increased transparency in the dispute resolution process is needed.

Opportunity: ArbCom could choose to explain decision-making in better detail, including reasons and justification. It is important that the participants in dispute resolution and the wider community understand why ArbCom decides to intervene -- or not to intervene, because this suggests a way to approach similar problems in other contexts.

These are not my words, but I adopt them as if they were my own. That said, ArbCom should decline to endorse the framing which Qwyrxian presents.

Conventional dispute resolution tools are available, but we have seen these opportunities ignored, marginalized, thwarted, frustrated, etc. We have no good reason to hope for something better or different in this venue. --Tenmei (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Penwhale

A lot of the dispute resolution has not result in participation by parties. In addition, the fact that the romanized-name of both Senkaku and Diaoyu(tai) are often misspelled adds to the difficulty of using other sources to see which one is more commonly used. You can see the various attempts at using web search hits to determine the name being used more on the article talk page.

If this request is accepted, then just like it was in the Liancourt Rocks case, only editor conduct should be looked into. In addition, perhaps a community input can be requested by Arbitration Committee to seek broader input. - Penwhale | 23:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Recuse on grounds of political bias and actions I've taken on this issue. - Penwhale | 23:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/1/2)

• I could go either way on this. As stated, we avoid content rulings, but possibly what we could do is see who is preventing consensus from being reached and if they are acting in ways contrary to Misplaced Pages's norms and policies, remove them from the topic area. I could also see the area being placed under discretionary sanctions. If folks wouldn't mind, I'd like to see statements about how much of this dispute is conduct, and how much of the dispute is content. SirFozzie (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Recuse. I would think the various editors concerned would think this counted as sufficiently sticking my oar in already. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• I echo SirFozzie's queries to the parties. I see that many dispute resolution methods have been tried, but if the underlying issues are not based on conduct then there's little we can really do. @Tenmei, I don't think single cases are the places to broaden or modify ArbCom's scope--that's something that should start with the community. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 20:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)