< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:03, 17 August 2011 view sourceEnkyo2 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers58,409 editsm →Statement by Tenmei: better words ... meaning→ value? underscored→ highlighted?← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:41, 17 August 2011 view source AlexandrDmitri (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users8,569 edits →Senkaku Islands: case openedNext edit →
Line 99:		Line 99:
	*'''Decline''' per those above me. ] (])		*'''Decline''' per those above me. ] (])
	*'''Decline''' at least for now. If after the abortion case is closed, there are still concerns, we could look again. ] (]) 02:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)		*'''Decline''' at least for now. If after the abortion case is closed, there are still concerns, we could look again. ] (]) 02:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

	== Senkaku Islands ==
	'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 09:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

	=== Involved parties ===
	<!-- use {{admin\|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
	*{{admin\|Qwyrxian}}, ''filing party''
	*{{userlinks\|Tenmei}}
	*{{userlinks\|Bobthefish2}}
	*{{userlinks\|STSC}}
	*{{userlinks\|Lvhis}}
	*{{userlinks\|Oda Mari}}
	*{{userlinks\|Phoenix7777}}
	*{{userlinks\|John Smith's}}
	*{{userlinks\|Benlisquare}}
	*{{admin\|Penwhale}}
	*{{admin\|Feezo}}
	*{{admin\|Magog the Ogre}}
	*{{admin\|Zscout370}}
	<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->

	;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
	<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*Note: I added myself to this case, so I do not need a notification. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

	;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
	<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->
	*See below in Statement by Qwyrxian

	=== Statement by Qwyrxian ===
	] and ] have been the subject of dispute as far back as 2003 (See ]). ] has been protected 5 times, including twice in the past year, and is currently fully protected. ] 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 ), but was moved back each time. Various steps of dispute resolution have been taken; none have succeeding in ending the disputes. Specifically:

	*July 2007—]: Request to move to "Pinnacle Islands".
	*September 2010—]: Request to move to "Pinnacle Islands".
	*November 2010—]: RfC on the article title.
	*May – July 2011—]: MedCom mediation.

	Also, issues relating to these pages have been raised on noticeboards and Wikitalk pages, including ''']''' (]), ''']''' (]), ''']''' (], ], ]), ''']''' (4 discussions, see ), 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, . Others have used . Others . One editor was taken to WQA for xyr behaviors on these pages (]); another was the subject of an RFC/U (]). 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 ], 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 ===
	<small><s>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). – ]<sup><b>]</b></sup> 10:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)</s></small>

	:I'm going to follow the example of Tenmei – – and not participate in this. I have better things to do with my life than <s>argue over some stupid islands I don't care about</s> get involved in petty disputes about who is "right" or "wrong," and the possible ramifications of who gets disciplined/reprimanded/etc. I'm done. – ]<sup><b>]</b></sup> 07:40, 17 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 ], a board which at times I frequent as a deciding admin. Since then, ] has been subject to numerous locks , and ] 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 (],],],],],],],],],],],],]).

	At a few times, I may not have given the issue the proper consideration it was due (cf. ], 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 ] on mandatory ] 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:
	* ] for his unnecessarily loquaciousness, which I believe has often been used (unintentionally) to cover up a case of ]. I also believe Tenmei exhibits a severe case of ], and possibly a lack of necessary ] (it is hurtful, and it pains me to say, but I have no other explanation).
	* I have also called out ] 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. ] (]) 12:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
	:(Moved and redacted by clerk) @David Fuchs: I just want to say that they ''are'' based on user conduct. ] (]) 22:25, 14 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<br>
	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. ] (]) 17:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

	EDIT: To reiterate, I would say that the problems are largely down to user behaviour. ] (]) 21:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

	=== Statement by Tenmei ===
	Qwyrxian's ] for help is a kind of ]. It resists parsing. 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 ''<u>surface civility is used to cover bias, tendentiousness and even harassment</u>''.
	::<u>Opportunity</u>:

	* Less timidity in addressing issues related to contents (''<u>POV warring</u>, tag teams, academic dishonesty'').
	::<u>Opportunity</u>:

	* Increased ''<u>transparency in the dispute resolution process is needed</u>''.
	::<u>Opportunity</u>:

	These are not all my words, but I adopt them as if they were my own. <small><s>That said, ArbCom should decline to endorse the ] which Qwyrxian presents.</s></small>

	] were construed to be an ordinary ] like an ], then Coren's premise might be understood as something to do with using it more effectively?]]
	Conventional dispute resolution tools are available, but we have seen these opportunities ignored, marginalized, thwarted, frustrated, etc. <small><s>We have no good reason to hope for something better or different in this venue.</s></small> --] (]) 21:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

	@ Qwyrxian -- are you unable or unwilling to ] and sharpen the focus of your statement in paragraphs and bullet points which are congruent with Coren's comment ? --] (]) 16:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

	@ SirFozzi and David Fuchs -- responding to requests, is it constructive to suggest that your ability to appreciate of the marriage of "content" and "conduct" may be better informed by two related concepts?
	* ] (])
	* ] (])<br>
	These concepts are illustrated in the diffs of Qwyrxian and Bobthefish2 in one resolved thread . The instructive value of this thread was highlighted by a proximal suggestion:
	: -- Bobthefish2 08:45, 27 January 2011
	This is complicated, but not inconsistent with problems Coren proposes to address ? --] (]) 19:15, 16 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 ], only editor conduct should be looked into. In addition, perhaps a community input can be requested by Arbitration Committee to seek broader input. - ] \| <sup>] and ]</sup> 23:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
	=== Statement by Eraserhead1 ===
	I have no interest in this topic whatsoever - I don't even know where these islands are.

	However I do think that its important to solve disputes rather than leave them hanging - that's why I took the abortion case to the mediation cabal rather than just walking away. I also appreciate that you guys have a big workload but ultimately I think that if all the steps in the dispute resolution process have been tried - and formal mediation has failed - then that in itself is a conduct issue that should be addressed by somebody. Maybe the only solution is to topic ban everyone who is involved in the dispute and let new editors take over, maybe you can draw a line in the sand between the disruptive behaviour and the non-disruptive behaviour but it shouldn't just be left hanging as that isn't good for anyone. {{unsigned\|Eraserhead1}}

	=== Statement by STSC ===
	There are some "edit-warlords" constantly preventing any NPOV edit on the article; an intervention is needed to find a satisfactory solution. ] (]) 04:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

	=== Statement by Lvhis ===
	Eventually this case has been brought here. Took me for a while to be familiar with the procedure of ArbCom. I am still not sure if I have understood this procedure fully correctly. So please correct me if I am incorrect or inappropriate doing my part here.

	I am a relative newer one involved in this topic since I did not touch these pages until February 21, 2011 when I just came across that page. I think the substantial reason for such hardly resolvable dispute mainly due to that the dispute is tightly related to an international territory dispute like what happened in the case of the page ] (or Islands). So I would like to echo Penwhale that this case is like ]. The fundamental problem that has caused this dispute being unresolvable so far is NPOV problem, like what is stated in the guideline ] "to avoid giving the impression of support for a particular national point of view", compromise should be reached between editors, and thereafter consensus can be reached. Unfortunately, certain users attitude (and conduct?) towards to NPOV policy and the particular guideline has made this kind of compromise or consensus almost impossible. <s>(sorry, not yet finished and may add more later).</s> --] (]) 04:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

	'''Improper conduct 1''': Pushing a wrong concept like "a non-English name is the real Enlish name" in this disputed issue with Original Thought/Researches, even when several reliable sources have been provided that there '''is''' a real and pure English name originated from English language itself, to refuse to reach consensus not only for the naming issue, but also for editing certain part of the page (], ]). The main aim of such improper conduct is POV pushing. Recently such improper conduct was led by user ].

	'''Improper conduct 2''': Double standards that made certain editting-war prevention effort ineffective or in vain.
	For instance, a unorthodox sanction was set by admin Magog the Ogre recently for the page ] and worked quite well at beginning that some sort of consensus for editing some part had even been reached (, , ), but later this sanction became actually ineffective, not only by user Tenmei's violation () but also by user Qwyrxian's cooperative "revert" () and a "discussion" (]) which interrupted another ongoing discussion (]) obeying the sanction, rather than reporting this to admin Magog the Ogre. User Qwyrxian also made an excuse for user Tenmei (). When user Tenmei came back from his "wiki pausing", he challenged the saction bolder and bolder (), and eventually has made admin Magog the Ogre fully protected that page (). The lesson here I think is no matter what kind of sanctions, or block, or ban will be enforced, the more important or key point here is '''how to''' enforce it. Unbalanced enforcement of rules will ruin any efforts of such sanctions, bans, etc.

	User Qwyrxian is a newly elected admin. He has been involved in this dispute for quite a long time and in a very deep extent. Although he did not use his admin tool in this dispute after getting his adminship, the situation for the disputed page after his back from a recent short break of him seemed has been deteriorated. In his RfA I made a firm "Oppose" vote (]) and expressed my worry and concern. Although thereafter I once ever ignited a hope that his election would improve him and help to solve this dispute (], ), now I have been totally disappointed. He is also the ] of this RfAr. I know I challenged an admin but I hope for the sake of Misplaced Pages and of resolving the hardly resolvable dispute, the improper conducts mentioned above can be reprimanded. --] (]) 21:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

	=== Statement by Zscout370 ===
	I forgot how I was asked to look into the article, but I was involved with trying to steer the discussion on the title of the article. I have brought up the title "Pinnacle Islands" because it was similar to the result of the Laincourt Rocks (an issue that I have dealt with in the capacity as an OTRS agent by answering emails about the subject). I have not blocked any users over the issue, but I knew my involvement could have been seen as a possible POV problem because of my involved with the Japanese on and off wiki (ja-3). I also did not sanction any user with regards to the article or provided any article protections. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


	=== Statement by Feezo ===
	As the appointed mediator in the Senkaku Islands formal mediation case, I affirm the Mediation Committee supports arbitration regarding the Senkaku Islands. I am of the opinion that the problems which this case addresses are almost exclusively user conduct. As mediator, I have a duty to ensure that conduct within the closed mediation case remains privileged: to that end, I have deleted the case talk pages for at least the duration of this arbitration. This is unlikely to have any influence on these proceedings, as conduct within the case was substantially similar to conduct without; examples have already been provided. <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;" color="#BBAED0">] <font size="-2">] \| ])</font></span> 18:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

	=== Statement by Bobthefish2 ===

	Since this is just an initial statement, I will keep it short.

	Tendentious editing is, by far, the most severe problem suffered by these pages. Almost every major discussion about content is paralyzed by this issue. Tenmei is, among all, the chief offender. He has a stubborn tendency of derailing debates and piling in tremendous amounts irrelevant and hard-to-parse arguments. Since this issue has already been described by other parties in an appropriate amount of detail, I’d leave it at that for now.

	Despite Magog the Ogres and Qwyrxians’ complaints about civility, they’ve been party of substantially worse offenses recently. While I have had no problems with Magog in the past, he has recently mishandled a situation – an allegation confirmed by another admin – but refused to correct the matter. When asked for clarification, he said the matter was getting on his nerves and then forcibly closed off the discussions to prevent more questions being asked . Later, when asked another question about his handling of another situation, he refused to address the question and instead complained that the requesting party does nothing but troll .

	Qwyrxian has often fancied himself as a ''neutral party'' and a civility crusader, but he has an unfortunate habit of WP:HOUNDing other people (such as myself). He has noted on an occasion that he held a personal bias against me and implied that he found content to be ''offensive partly'' because I was the author . He is also a party to Magog’s recent inappropriate handling of issues and gamed the system in a very obvious manner.

	That’s about all I would say for now. I will provide diffs, examples, and details in the next stage of the arbitration. --] (]) 02:11, 16 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. - ] \| <sup>] and ]</sup> 23:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
	*@Jclemens: Arbitration policy used to read that referral by Jimbo Wales or MedCom meant the Committee would automatically accept the case. ] still mentions Jimbo, but I don't see MedCom there anymore. Do you know when that was changed? '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 03:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
	**I did a quick glance and couldn't find even a single mention of MedCom on there. - ] \| <sup>] and ]</sup> 10:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
	***Yep. See of the old Arbitration Committee scope for what I had meant. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 13:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
	****At least since 2006, case requests endorsed by the Mediation Committee are voted on at the acceptance stage like any other case, although the MedCom's urging that the case go to arbitration is very likely to lead to the request being accepted. See ]. ] (]) 14:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

	=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (7/0/1/1) ===
	*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. ] (]) 15:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
	**'''Accept''' ] (]) 18:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
	*'''Recuse'''. I would think the various editors concerned would think counted as sufficiently sticking my oar in already. --] (]) 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. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup><small>(<font color="#ff6600">]</font>)</small></sup> 20:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
	*::(Inline comment moved to own section by clerk) <small>By convention, parties and arbs reply to each other in our respective sections. ] (]) 23:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)</small>
	*'''Accept''' <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 23:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
	*<s>'''Awaiting statements'''</s> ] (]) 23:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
	**'''Accept''' anything that MedCom defers and throws our way should be accepted by default. ] (]) 02:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
	*Awaiting further statements, leaning toward acceptance and the expectation that this could be a relatively quick case. ] (]) 01:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
	**'''Accept'''. ] (]) 18:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
	*'''Accept''' ] (] '''·''' ]) 13:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
	*'''Accept'''; this is a relatively simple case where it's likely consensus ''could'' be reached if everyone behaved and where Arbcom could help by making sure everybody ''does''. — ] <sup>]</sup> 14:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
	*'''Accept'''. ] (]) 22:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
	*'''Accept'''. –]] 02:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:41, 17 August 2011

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
NYyankees51		15 August 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	1 December 2024

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-llists.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.

NYyankees51

Initiated by Flowingfire (talk) at 08:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Involved parties

Flowingfire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
NYyankees51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
XLR8TION (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MastCell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Equality_Ride

Statement by Flowingfire

While I would like to believe in NYyankees51's sincere wish to improve Misplaced Pages, I need to address what might actually be going on: The targeting of numerous progressive articles with the purpose of diminishing their content and then deleting them. This strategy appears to destroy/diminish articles of political opposition rather than improve their content, while utilizing Misplaced Pages rules to justify the attrition.

From what I can tell, NYyankees51 (and others) may be targeting progressive pages for deletion and content removal, looking for any reason he can to destroy articles he doesn't like. (With most pages, it's easy to find at least 'something' wrong.) Recently, with the Equality Ride page, he deleted huge portions of content where he claimed references were not cited or where NPOV was off-base in his opinion. This, in itself, is within the rules, and he's perfectly right to do so. Perhaps he was even right about the specifics, and I can be thankful for what was pointed out.

My complaint is not that he broke any rules, but rather that he's destroying the community when he attempts to find any reason he can to delete content or remove pages he doesn't like-- sometimes systematically stripping content away before slating a page for removal. After viewing his history, I saw that he targets progressive pages frequently, and is rather ruthless about it. He seems especially focused against pages having to do with gay marriage or gay rights. This kind of anti-political, anti-civil-rights targeting is completely against the spirit of Misplaced Pages, even while it may be "rule-oriented" or even appear helpful. Used wisely, rules about references and NPOV are good. Used poorly, the same rules can turn into a witch-hunt that impoverishes Misplaced Pages as a whole. Rules can help make articles stronger and encourage better citation; yet, they can also give guys like this the tools to promote a firestorm of anti-political war, wreaking havoc on his perceived political enemies. His little war against progressive pages is destructive to the community, and to the long process of creating strong pages. He weakens them for his political gain rather than building on them.

Just look at this guy's talk page. It is full of disputes about his edits to progressive pages, and he knows how to play the system to diminish any person or page.

Misusing the rules of Misplaced Pages and the stringent letter of the law to destroy pages he doesn't agree with is just not cool. Creating better references and improving content is one thing. Spending his time removing other people's hard work because he found a "rule" to back up his anti-gay political agenda is another. Progressive articles after NYyankees51's edits are left less relevant, deleted, or impoverished for information. In the name of being "cleaned up," Misplaced Pages becomes less of a website for progressives seeking to reference or build upon content. It becomes less relevant for all.

Please end this guy's little war against fledgling articles on gay rights, abortion, and liberalism. Build, don't destroy.

Flowingfire (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by NYyankees51

I filed a COI report on Flowingfire because he is affiliated with Equality Ride and didn't like the edits I made to it. This case was filed hours after I filed the COI report. XLR8TION accused me of "vandalism" after I made an edit he didn't like. I have been engaged in a months-long dispute with Binksternet over the Susan B. Anthony List article. And I did some things I regret to Roscelese, for which I apologized for multiple times via email and I tried to make amends with her. I don't know whether I've done anything to or with MastCell. The point is that I've ticked off these editors in some way (which is unavoidable when you edit political or religious topics), so this case is purely vindictive. If my editing is problematic, by all means I will change it - but only if an uninvolved editor, not editors who are out to get me back, finds legitimate problems. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In response to Bishonen below, I was the one who requested the closing of the Wikiquette and ANI threads I opened: User talk:NYyankees51#Editing priviliege. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by XLR8TION

User NyYankees51 has clearly stated that he has an "anti" stance on many contemporary social issues such as gay marriage and abortion. He likes to pick and choose what can appear in an article to satisfy his leanings, without having any consideration on the constructive edits of others. If a conflict of interest does exist between the user's beliefs and the article's purpose, then he should not edit it in order to comply with the site's neutrality rules when writing a sound article. What if Mel Gibson's father edited the article on the Holocaust, saying that it was merely a dream or a neo-Nazi edited the article on Anne Frank, saying that she did not die in a concentration camp and now is happily living in West Palm Beach? Do you see my point of view? Either comply with the site's guidelines on editing articles, or leave them alone!--XLR8TION (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Binksternet

NYyankees51 has a known conflict of interest regarding pro-life topics. In his sockpuppet investigation, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/NYyankees51/Archive, it was determined that two of his sockpuppets were 70.21.119.84 and 75.103.237.18, both IPs owned by sba.list.org. That is the Susan B. Anthony List, an organization that targets pro-choice politicians for harsh statements while giving pro-life politicians money and support. He also edited as 173.13.237.237 and 66.160.108.190, IPs owned by Bishop Ireton High School, a school run by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Arlington.

It is clear to me from watching two years of his editing style that NYyankees51 came to Misplaced Pages to put forward a pro-life, pro-Catholic and pro-neoconservative agenda. To that end, he has also worked to diminish or dismiss pro-choice and liberal viewpoints, as well as religious pluralism in Catholicism.

I can list a long string of examples if that is what this venue is looking for. Binksternet (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

I don't exactly see why I was chosen as an "involved" editor here, and I think that whatever issues may exist are best addressed in the currently open Abortion case, or separately using lower levels of dispute resolution. MastCell 02:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Roscelese

While I agree that NYY's edit history is quite problematic, I'm not sure that RFAR is the appropriate forum and I dislike messy arbitration cases, so my participation here will be minimal. Note to Bishonen though, i-ban = interaction ban. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Diffs from Bishonen

In the context of NYyankees51 targeting progressive topics, note also the targeting of Roscelese, a progressive editor, over several fora by NYyankees51, Haymaker, and JorgePeixoto:

WQA thread

ANI thread

3RR thread

NYyankees51 is the initiator of the WQA and ANI threads, while Haymaker (who states here, at least if I understand his phrasing, that he hopes to accomplish the indefinite banning of Roscelese) was the one who posted the much criticised 3RR complaint..

The above diffs are all very recent. Bishonen | talk 12:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC). P.S., addendum for completeness: follow-up ANI thread initiated by myself. Bishonen | talk 12:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC).

I probably misunderstood — I hope so — it strikes me that "i-ban" could as well have meant "interaction ban".

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/4)

Comment - usually we'd expect a Request for Comment or some more extensive community discussion before coming here. Is there a reason to expect this will fail anyway? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment; I think this is more delicate than first appears. Unless I misunderstand the request, the complaint is that this is an editor who edits within policy but in a matter where it is applied "against" certain political views exclusively? In that case, it's not immediately clear that the committee can do (or, indeed, whether it should do anything). We obviously cannot coerce a volunteer in working on articles they do not choose to, and unless the work they do on the articles they do chose to edit is improper, there is little to be done.
One of our founding principles is the presumption that every editor comes in with specific interests and biases but that, collectively, the result is good if we all follow the rules on civility, neutrality and verifiability; that things end up good on average as it were. — Coren 14:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment - not sure I understand Coren's comment. I believe the complaint is that his editing is improper targeting of whatever it is he objects to, and the editors that write that kind of article also. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Awaiting statements but leaning decline per Cas. Agree with Coren that our job is not to police POV editors who are willing to work collaboratively and collegially. In order for me to accept, I'd need to see evidence of 1) more failed mid-level dispute resolution, and 2) allegations of specific misbehavior rising to the level of ArbCom involvement. Trying to get someone with whom you disagree banned is not a per se bad faith action, although not one most productive editors engage in for any length of time. Jclemens (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Decline With a couple of clarifications 1) If the primary "victim" does not see an Arbitration case as the best way forward, I give significant weight to that argument. 2) Ideological, political, or religious biases are not conflicts of interest in any meaningful sense unless they include direct or plausible yet indirect financial reward. There's a difference between a fan of a book writing its Misplaced Pages article, and the author or publisher doing so. Likewise, there's a difference between a religious adherent editing relevant Misplaced Pages topics, and a member of the paid organizational hierarchy doing so. We all have our own biases, per what Cas says above, and I prefer only to single out financial gain as actionable per se, else we would be deciding between competing ideologies, and that's not ArbCom's job. Jclemens (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Question: Would a significant portion of this request be picked up in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion, a case that recently opened and is pending? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Also awaiting further statements; but leaning decline - further to Cas & Jc, would like to see some earlier steps in the DR process, or an explanation as to why that would be insufficient. –xeno 17:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Decline at present. –xeno 02:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Decline per those above me. SirFozzie (talk)
Decline at least for now. If after the abortion case is closed, there are still concerns, we could look again. PhilKnight (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)