Revision as of 17:02, 18 November 2019 view sourceToThAc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers11,549 editsm →Involved parties← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:19, 18 November 2019 view source Sm8900 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers63,984 edits →Statement by {Non-party}Next edit → | ||
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
=== Statement by Mark Schierbecker === | === Statement by Mark Schierbecker === | ||
=== Statement by Newshunter12 === | === Statement by Newshunter12 === | ||
=== Statement by {{User:Sm8900}} === | |||
I urge Arbcom to take this case. the rhetoric used in cases pertaining to portals has continually included various disparaging terms used by one editors for other editors with whom they disagree. Arbcom is sorely needed to review editor conduct. this includes some editors who are admins. --] (]) 17:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by {Non-party} === | === Statement by {Non-party} === | ||
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information. | Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information. |
Revision as of 17:19, 18 November 2019
"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.Shortcut
Requests for arbitration
Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
---|---|---|---|
Civility in portal deletion discussions | 18 November 2019 | 0/0/0 |
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 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsRequest name | Motions | Case | Posted |
---|---|---|---|
Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan_3 | none | (orig. case) | 4 January 2025 |
Motion name | Date posted |
---|---|
Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
Shortcuts
About this page Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
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.
General guidance
|
Civility in portal deletion discussions
Initiated by ToThAc (talk) at 16:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Involved parties
- ToThAc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Robert McClenon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Moxy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Mark Schierbecker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Newshunter12 (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
- Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case § Portal Issues (declined)
- Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1020 § Portal updates reverted
- Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Portals (See here for additional discussions.)
Statement by ToThAc
This has been a recurring debate ever since the separate mass deletions of portalspam created by The Transhumanist.
As summarized in Robert McClenon's essay on issues surrounding portals, the necessity of portals in general has been heavily debated over the course of several months. In April 2018, The Transhumanist started an RfC on deprecating portals, which was closed with a rough consensus to not delete all portals. However, a few users took this as a sign that Misplaced Pages needed more portals, and began creating automated spam that eventually led to a portal topic ban applied to The Transhumanist and the aforementioned mass deletions.
However, several users, myself included, have repeatedly called the necessity of certain portals into question, and have slowly been nominating additional portals for deletion. This has caused us to clash with the so-called "portal advocates" who wish to keep certain portals.
More recently, this has led to extremely heated arguments between BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000. During portal deletion discussions, both users have displayed, at best, questionable behavior. BHG has become increasingly frustrated with her interactions with NA1k, even going as far as to calling him "sneaky" and "either a liar or an idiot or both". However, NA1k's actions are also a cause for concern; he has repeatedly demonstrated fait accompli behavior, failing to disclose his methodology for the kinds of selected content he added to portals, not to mention implementing said changes without an adequate community consensus. (While NA1k's proposed organization method of selected content was well-received in this discussion, nothing there was ever formally closed, and NA1k has failed to cite whether he based his edits off of that discussion.) The ongoing back-and-forth at the deletion discussion for Portal:Transport is a good example of what I'm talking about here.
However, as generally agreed upon in this ANI discussion, singling out one user in this whole mess would appear to poison the atmosphere one way or another. Since it appears that nothing else has succeeded in cooling this debate, I strongly urge the Arbitration Committee to review the conduct of all users involved in this debate, myself included. ToThAc (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Statement by BrownHairedGirl
Statement by Northamerica1000
Statement by Robert McClenon
Statement by Moxy
Statement by Mark Schierbecker
Statement by Newshunter12
Statement by User:Sm8900
I urge Arbcom to take this case. the rhetoric used in cases pertaining to portals has continually included various disparaging terms used by one editors for other editors with whom they disagree. Arbcom is sorely needed to review editor conduct. this includes some editors who are admins. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Statement by {Non-party}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Civility in portal deletion discussions: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Civility in portal deletion discussions: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)