Revision as of 20:33, 20 March 2014

Requests for arbitration

• 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.

Debian

Initiated by 84.127.80.114 (talk) at 19:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties

• 84.127.80.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Flamingspinach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Guy Macon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mthinkcpp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rwxrwxrwx (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

Statement by 84.127.80.114

Misplaced Pages policies are well written and administrators are generally trustworthy. The Misplaced Pages method works... except for one kind of articles: Debian, Ubuntu and the like. Misplaced Pages is full of Debian references. Wikimedia chooses Ubuntu for all of its servers. We can see it on every page, X-Powered-By: PHP/5.3.10-1ubuntu3.10+wmf1

This is our stage and it will not change. It would make no sense to recuse LFaraone for being affiliated with Ubuntu and Debian. This profile is all over the community. These users are the ones maintaining Misplaced Pages.

This encyclopedia will not reach the unbiased status until it is able to accept real criticism for these articles; grounded criticism, of course. But I am also talking about facts that are perceived as pejorative.

I believe I can help with this goal by adding some proposed changes to the Debian article. I repeat my good faith stance: I am trying to improve a Misplaced Pages article. I do not try to defame Debian. I do not try to praise Debian. I simply describe what is noticeably missing about Debian. By doing that, I improve the article and this encyclopedia.

When I first introduced my changes, the initial reaction was denial and hostility: claims of vandalism, campaign, unreliable sources... I offered discussion from the very first revert. Unable to disprove the material, administrator help was requested. Ignoring my discussion efforts, administrator activity led to my block.

Refusal to discuss is a conduct issue. Nevertheless, my requests at the administrators' noticeboards have failed. I even tried a content venue, but the problem is obviously a refusal to discuss the material. This is a recent and noticeable example: I contacted a random arbitrator and, without being asked about content, she stated "the content that you are attempting to add to the article is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages" without further explanation.

I am offered to file RfC processes but "Before using the RfC process , it always helps to first discuss the matter". The community is denying the necessary initial discussion. If the Arbitration Committee allows this situation, it will prove that Misplaced Pages is unable to discuss such material.

Therefore, I hope that this arbitration case will be accepted. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Rwxrwxrwx

This is ridiculous. The bulk of the IP's desired edits clearly violate WP:SOAP, WP:OR, WP:RS. This has been explained to him many times by many people, including others not named here. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Macon

I became involved in this when it came to DRN, where I volunteer to try to help people to resolve content disputes. The case is at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 88#Debian.

I quickly became clear that this is a content dispute where 84.127.80.114 wished to insert a large amount of material regarding the internal politics of the Debian project that violated WP:NPOV, was of questionable relevance, and was poorly sourced. It also became clear that consensus was strongly against the changes. I attempted to get 84.127.80.114 to bring up any sourcing questions at the reliable sources noticeboard and to post a request for comment and argue his case to determine whether the wider community has a different consensus than the editors who have been working on the Debian page. This advice was rejected.

As for the oft-repeated claim that there is a failure-to-discuss behavioral issue on the part of those who oppose the edits in question (which appears to be the only claim that is within the scope of the arbitration committee), the reality is that multiple editors have told 84.127.80.114 that his edits are unsuitable, first in edit summaries, then in comments on the article talk page, on his talk page by administrator JamesBWatson, on the dispute resolution noticeboard, and at other venues, including the talk page of arbcom member GorillaWarfare.

This is a simple case of a user who doesn't like the consensus and is forum shopping in the hope of getting a different answer. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by JamesBWatson

My very first thought on starting to read the opening statement by 84.127.80.114 was word-for word what I later found that Rwxrwxrwx has written: "This is ridiculous". The IP editor must have a rather limited experience of disputes on English Misplaced Pages if he or she thinks that this sort of disagreement is limited to "Debian, Ubuntu and the like": it happens all the time, on any subject where there is one person who comes here determined to use Misplaced Pages to publicise particular "facts" that they believe are not well enough known, finds that consensus is against them, and instead of accepting that, decides that there is an evil conspiracy to suppress THE TRUTH about the particular issue in question. It is also absurd to suggest that Misplaced Pages administrators have some sort of interest in suppressing negative coverage of Debian because that is what the Wikimedia servers run. Misplaced Pages administrators, like most Misplaced Pages editors, are ordinary members of the public who choose to volunteer, and most of us have no connection whatever to the Wikimedia foundation. I for one didn't even know that the servers run Debian until I read the statement above from the IP editor, and now that I know I don't care. I would be willing to bet that the same applies to over 99% of administrators.

The claim that there is a failure to discuss the issues is utter nonsense, as has been shown by diffs provided by other editors above. A number of editors have attempted to discuss the issues, in several places, but the IP editor simply does not recognise discussion as being discussion if that discussion does not support his/her view. The fact of the matter is that we have an editor who is firmly attached to his/her opinion that certain facts are THE TRUTH and need to be made publicly known by any means whatever, and switches into I didn't hear that mode whenever he/she encounters anything that does not fit in with that view, resulting in a probably sincere but erroneous perception that there has been refusal to discuss. As is often the case with editors here with a mission to reveal THE TRUTH, "a lot of people agreeing with me" = consensus, while "a lot of people disagreeing with me" = an evil conspiracy. Unable to accept that consensus is against him/her, the editor is desperately forum shopping to try to get support for his/her stance. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Mthinkcpp

Unacceptable content being proposed for the Debian page by 84.127.80.114. The reasons for rejection have been given at the WP:DRN case, on the talk page, edit summaries and on 84.127.80.114's talk page - in detail, by more than one user. 84.127.80.114 has rejected the explanations (by pretending they don't exist), and has since being attempting to game the system via various techniques, including two incident reports (3RR, Noticeboard) against me (both which were rejected), in an attempt to force the content onto the page, the WP:DRN case and misusing a policy to get the content on the page (WP:SILENCE, Talk:Debian).

I agree with Rwxrwxrwx and JamesBWatson, it is ridiculous.

Outside View by Robert McClenon

The quality of requested ArbCom cases has been deterioriating recently and is becoming ridiculous. It is clear that there hasn't been any adequate attempt to resolve the content dispute, and the filing part hasn't presented evidence of a conduct dispute other than vague hints at a conspiracy suppressing the truth. Either the case should be declined, or the case should be declined and the filing party admonished. By the way, I suggest that the filing party register an account; it will provide various privileges. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Debian: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/1/0>-Debian-2014-03-19T07:47:00.000Z">

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

• Awaiting further statements, but leaning decline based on what I've read so far. Carcharoth (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)"> ">
  • Decline per the statements above in response to the request and per the comments by other arbitrators below. Carcharoth (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• Decline. This is a good-faith content dispute among editors and those are outside of our purview (see, among many, here). 84.127.80.114, your only possible course of action, now, is to start an RFC and accept that, sometimes, consensus may be against you/your proposal. Salvio 10:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Decline for the reasons given by Salvio. This would also be a good spot to thank the editors who have volunteered to help resolve content disputes at DRN. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Decline, I see no indication that normal dispute resolution processes have failed to handle this matter. The fact that the outcome of those processes was not to someone's liking is not grounds for arbitration. Seraphimblade 16:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Decline, as I've already said I would. This is not an issue for the Arbitration Committee to handle. As a side note, your suggestion that our articles on Linux distributions cannot be unbiased because Misplaced Pages is hosted on servers running Ubuntu makes me question if you extend that all judgment to all computing- and even electricity-related articles, as those are used to serve Misplaced Pages as well. I trust that the Misplaced Pages community can work to create unbiased articles on these subjects, despite the operating system used on the Wikimedia servers, and without the Arbitration Committee stepping in. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• Decline. T. Canens (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• Decline. I have less faith than some other Arbs about whether this is a "good faith" content dispute, but the community can handle it if the disruption continues. And on another note, NYB is right about a hat tip being appropriate to those who help out at WP:DRN. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• Decline per all the above. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• Recuse. LFaraone 20:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Wallis Simpson title of Royal Highness

Initiated by Milneg (talk) at 21:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Milneg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• DrKiernan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DonQuixote (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

The two parties have been informed of this request.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

After repeated reverts of my edits, combined with a refusal to provide meaningful reasons for the reverts, I requested mediation. DrKiernan declined mediation. I therefore have no option but to apply for arbitration.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Wallis_Simpson

Statement by Milneg

A dispute has arisen over the question of whether Wallis Simpson (1896-1986), Duchess of Windsor, who married the former King Edward VIII, was entitled to the rank and style of 'Royal Highness'. It has been clear for some years now (i.e. beyond dispute) that she was so entitled and that she was illegally and vindicitively (not my word - see linked pdf below)prevented from using that title by the royal family and the UK government of the time with the connivance of senior royal servants and law officers of the Crown. The matter is explained on the pages linked below. DrKiernan has refused mediation so I am obliged to apply for arbitration. Although this issue involves questions of peerage law and the law relating to the exercise of the royal prerogative, it is not a complex matter and any non-legally-trained person can master the issues quite quickly. It is important to note that a former editor of the most authoritative publication on peerage and royal matters in the UK (Burke’s Peerage) agrees with me, as explained in the linked pdf. The matter is beyond dispute. This is not a question of interpretation; it is a simple issue of fact. On top of all this DrKiernan has acted in a very unreasonable manner; he has repeatedly reverted my edits without providing proper explanations, made false assertions (re alleged copyright breaches for example), made false statements of fact, broken Misplaced Pages’s own rules ('What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first.' - which he didn’t do), including the rules of etiquette, engaged in edit warring and then had me blocked for edit warring and refused to enter into mediation. At the very least the Misplaced Pages article should acknowledge that there is an alternative viewpoint (to the effect that Wallis Simpson was entitled to the rank and style of ‘Royal Highness) but DrKiernan seems to be determined not to even acknowledge that any alternative viewpoint exists, let alone that that viewpoint is correct. This is an important factual and legal issue because it effects the question of whether the Duchess of Cornwall is actually rightfully (and is currently) Princess of Wales and whether she will automatically become Queen when the Prince of Wales accedes to the throne.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Wallis_Simpson https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:DonQuixote https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Milneg https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:DrKiernan http://www.peerage.org/wallis/royal_feud_by_michael_thornton.pdf Milneg (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by DrKiernan

My interactions with the filing party and my behavior at the article are within policy. I can provide a fuller statement if the committee requests one. DrKiernan (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by DonQuixote

I don't know why I was brought into this, but I clearly stated that rather than linking to a copyright violation you should cite the book directly. I even referred to template:cite book. You just need title, author, publisher and publication date to correctly refer to source in question. DonQuixote (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Gaijin42

Ridiculous filing. A clear case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU as the user has gone through all other forms of DR and been soundly defeated. Not a conduct issue for anyone except Milneg. His own sources directly contradict his position http://www.peerage.org/wallis/royal_feud_by_michael_thornton.pdf It may be unfair, and discriminatory or whatever, but what happened happened, and Simpson was denied the HRH title. The relevance on the present day is also explicitly moot As Camilla will be titled "HRH Princess Consort" and not Queen. Again, maybe thats not fair, but it is what it is, and its not wikipedia's place to change it. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/10502851/The-Queen-takes-the-Duchess-of-Cornwall-under-her-wing.html http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/ThePrinceofWales/ThePrinceofWales.aspx Gaijin42 (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Hahc21

I blocked Milneg for edit warring, and he still does not understand that "being right" does not give him leeway to revert any other user who disagrees with him. He argues that I did not block Kiernan, but he was (a) not edit warring and (b) not breaching 3RR. What Kiernan and other users were doing was reverting Milneg's addition of unsourced information. He filed an unblock request still arguing that he was right and that Kiernan was at fault for everything that happened (he also claimed some sort of censorship to him). I agree with Beeblebrox that a topic-ban from Wallis Simpson is warranted, and I might add a one-way interaction ban with Kiernan to the package. If this behaviour continues, I would be willing to file the ANI request myself. → Call me Hahc21 17:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to note that Milneg was indefinitely blocked by KTC for making legal threats against Misplaced Pages and other users. → Call me Hahc21 02:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Recuse I was the one who blocked Milneg for edit warring. → Call me Hahc21 17:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Wallis Simpson title of Royal Highness: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/10/0/0>

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

• Decline I don't see a need for a full case but I might be minded to propose a motion for a topic ban if the filing party is not willing to let it go. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
• Decline. There is no user conduct issue identified in the request. The Arbitration Committee does not resolve content disputes like this one. For what it's worth, my personal opinion: 28 years after her death, it is much too late to argue about whether Wallis Simpson should be referred to as Her Royal Highness, and even if it were a current question, Misplaced Pages wouldn't be the right place for the argument. It is a historical fact that Wallis Simpson was not accorded the title Her Royal Highness, and so it would be anachronistic to identify her as if she had been accorded the title. To the extent there was a genuine controversy during her lifetime as to how she should be styled, the fact of the controversy, supported by reliable sources, could be reported in her article, as to an extent it is now; but it should be given only its due weight, which in the context of everything else notable about her, would be comparatively slight. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
• (e/c) I'm afraid I agree this dispute clearly does not require arbitration. Decline. I agree with Beeblebrox's assessment, but in this case I'm minded to refer the question of topic-banning to the community (who can quite quickly assess the situation at WP:ANI or a similar venue). AGK 22:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
• Decline. There doesn't appear to be a conduct issue to address here, and I agree with AGK that any assessment of Milneg's behavior should be left to the community. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• What Beeb said. Decline. Salvio 10:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• Decline, and I too suggest that a topic ban be proposed at ANI if conduct of the filing party is an issue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• Decline per my colleagues. T. Canens (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• Decline. Seraphimblade 21:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• Decline. LFaraone 21:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• Decline Almost purely content in nature. NativeForeigner 06:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Decline. Brad's points on the content issue should be made on the article talk page (for future editors of that article), as what he has written here will be removed and the request archived as a diff at declined requests. Carcharoth (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)