Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Case - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) at 22:14, 30 September 2012 (→Statement by Kiefer.Wolfowitz: sign---new at this sort of thing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:14, 30 September 2012 by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) (→Statement by Kiefer.Wolfowitz: sign---new at this sort of thing)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Professionalism and civility   30 September 2012 {{{votes}}}
Psychotherapies   24 September 2012 {{{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
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.

Professionalism and civility

Initiated by Alanscottwalker (talk) at 13:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Statement by Alancottwalker

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_this_now_considered_acceptable_from_an_administrator.3F was closed as:"This discussion has degenerated into vitriol and uselessness; no further admin action is going to be taken. Bring it to Arbcom or step outside and get a breath of fresh air. Ed 01:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)" And apparently led to this discussion:User talk:Jimbo Wales#Is it OK to call other editors "arsehole" or "dishonest idiot"? and this block/unblock sequence User talk:Malleus Fatuorum#Blocked for one week.

Given the charged rhetoric, counter charges, admin action, and generally poor conduct, this all appears to need {further) Arbcom action to "break the back" as stated in the arbitration guide. Like it or not, admin and content creators need to cooperate as do admin and admin, and editor and editor, in a collaborative effort. As currently constituted, this Project need both types of users, and needs both types to respect all other users, in a professional manner.

Statement by Mark Arsten

An e-mail I sent sparked this whole mess. I don't plan to say much more about this than I did at WP:AN last night: I was wrong to say what I did, I deeply regret doing so, I offer my apologies to Malleus and everyone else involved, and I'll accept whatever sanction the community/Arbcom deems appropriate. As to the other issues involved, I don't feel that the conduct of any of the other listed parties rises to the level where arbitration is appropriate, but I'll defer to the opinions of uninvolved users. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

  • For clarity's sake, here's the chronology as far as I know.
  1. . Last Friday night I closed an ANI thread about Malleus' comments at FAC and said that no immediate action was needed but that the FAC delegates would handle things. Shortly afterwards he started a thread entitled "That is so fucking pissy" on my talk page to complain about my close.
  1. Over the next couple days I asked him to revisit the thread on my page.
  2. Tuesday night I sent him the "fuck you" e-mail" "You know what, fuck you. You're a petulant, narcissistic piece of shit."
  3. Wednesday I sent an email to him apologizing and stated that I'd avoid him in the future: "Apologies for my e-mail last night, I wish I hadn't lost my temper. I'll resolve to merely avoid people that irritate me in the future."
  4. On Thursday he sent me an e-mail telling me not to lose my temper again and to be more careful about split infinitives: "I have no idea what you're talking about, but not losing your temper again sounds like a plan. BTW, when you're talking about people it's "who", not "that". And it's pretty good to avoid split infinitives as well."
  5. On Saturday night he complained about my conduct on AN thread in question. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Scorecard by Nobody Ent

  • Mark Arsten was called out and has already apologized.  Done
  • MF's reaction was intemperate and he was sanctioned (blocked) for it.  Done
  • Bongwarrier applied a premature and excessive sanction, but was quickly reversed and chastised on their talk page.  Done
  • BK did the right thing, no action or additional comment necessary.
  • Not sure why AQFK or Jehochman are named parties?

The committee has previously addressed a similar case, concluding:

Throughout the project, breaches of the expected level of decorum are common. These violations of the community's standards of conduct are unevenly, and often ineffectively, enforced. (1,2)
— English Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee

It's unclear what has changed in the intervening ~year such that taking a case would benefit Misplaced Pages. Nobody Ent 14:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Resolute

As much I respect and value Malleus' editing and reviewing abilities, I don't care in the slightest for his lack of civility overall. As such, I found his ANI complaint utterly hypocritical. If Misplaced Pages took civility seriously, he would have been banned long ago. So my answer to his original complaint is simple: if we're going to treat Mark Arsten the same as a "non-admin", namely Malleus himself, then fine. Lets block Mark, have a quick discussion about how much he brings to the project despite this breach of civility, then unblock him one hour and 37 minutes later. Or, lets just trout everyone for making a mountain out of a molehill and get on with editing. Resolute 15:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

I didn't comment at the WP:AN thread and strongly oppose ArbCom delving, once again, into the issue of civility on Misplaced Pages. If there is a case, I don't intend to participate, because it risks intensifying long-running disputes. Everybody needs to be encouraged to work toward greater civility, but people need to understand that editors will occasionally become flummoxed, some more than others, and drop an f-bomb here or there. When that happens, given them space, back off, and then point out that the comments are not civil. Sometimes it is useful to offer support to the target of hostile remarks. Rarely it may be necessary to block somebody if the attacks are really over the top and cross the line into racial, religious, sexual or nationalistic harassment. Simply calling somebody a "nitwit" or a "stupid fucker" isn't harassment; it's just coarse.

Statement by Dennis Brown

This doesn't belong here. If anything, this once again demonstrates why civility blocks are almost always a bad idea. Those that screwed up already know it, so preventative action isn't needed. Trouts to everyone, and move along. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

  • @SirFozzie: While it could be argued that trouts are not effective, we certainly have evidence that blocks can be equally ineffective, hence my prior statement. Heads are going to bump from time to time, and throwing more drama process on top of a minor scuffle only makes the situation worse, not better. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur

Once again we're here to get ArbCom to clarify and lay down some guidelines in terms of civility. That one of the parties to the case is one that was explicitly sanctioned in the previous case tells me that the previous case did not fix the problem. We have the same civility blocks, wheel warring blocks/unblocks, minimal (under 1 hour) discussions that any administrator can elect to ignore. ArbCom is the only one empowered by Jimmy Wales to take conduct matters into hand and deal with disruptive editors and administrators. Having a civility block be overturned less than 1 hour after minimal discussion only demonstrates that if you contribute some content, you're practically allowed to get away with anything. No editor is worth more than any other. No Administrator is above the rules of wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Looie496

It was wrong of ArbCom to decline the last incivility case, and you ought to find a way to accept this one. This issue has been massively disruptive for a long time, and it is time for ArbCom to make an effort to resolve it. Looie496 (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

I saw a block which was clearly excessive given the mild incivility that it was applied for (and also the situation which it was in the context of), and which the blocking administrator admitted was punitive rather than preventative . After a short discussion I undid it as such. I have not previously taken any administrative action regarding Malleus. Civility blocks need to be applied where they are clearly preventative of damage to Misplaced Pages or the involvement of other editors. A snarky edit summary in reply to a posting that was clearly designed to be inflammatory does not come under this heading (see also this FOF from the previous AC case). I completely stand by my actions here and would do exactly the same thing in the same situation. I'll also put this finding of fact from the previous AC case out there too - it's relevant.

@Nobody Ent: AQFK is involved as, unimpressed by the outcome, they went to Jimbo in an attempt to get it reversed. Jehochman notably commented here as well.

And while we're at it, even though this didn't factor in at the time, let's compare the two users. Malleus with his many FAs we all know, whilst JTrainor has 57 mainspace edits in the last three years and appears to mainly exist to pop up every couple of weeks on drama boards or AC cases and (a) ask for people to be blocked , (b) post completely unhelpful messages , or (c) as in this case, bait other users . Which of the two is Misplaced Pages better off with them editing?

And furthermore, WP:CIVIL says this - "In ... cases where there is reason to believe that taking admin action against someone who was uncivil would not be an uncontentious (or nearly so) prospect, it is expected that discussion will be opened on the matter, via ANI or RFC/U, before any admin action is taken." This was always going to be contentious. Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Rschen7754

*headdesk*.

Malleus shouldn't have made the initial remark that set Mark off. Mark shouldn't have sent that email. Jtrainor shouldn't have made the remark that set Malleus off. Malleus shouldn't have used the incivil edit summary. Bongwarrior was allowed under policy to block Malleus, but that probably was not the best call here, as that made things worse. Black Kite, however, should not have unblocked Malleus after a whopping 16 minutes of discussion.

So, to quote The Office, "Look, we could all file complaints against each other and just drown in a sea of paperwork, but you know, we can just move on with our... with our lives." If everyone could just drop it, we don't need a case. If the parties want to pursue this any further, then we may need one. --Rschen7754 17:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Trusilver

Misplaced Pages rests on five pillars. It's a damned good thing that one, two, three and five are strong, because the fourth has some structural issues. Everyone is uncivil at one point or another, everyone gets frustrated and makes a personal attack at some point. I've done it, most of the people that are reading this have done it. And anyone who hasn't... then I take my hat off to you, for you have the patience of a saint. The troubling issue isn't minor incivility. It's a handful of editors that have, right or wrong, behaved in a manner that has resulted in thousands of man-hours of masturbatory intellectual hand-wringing over what the word "civil" means. I'm generally opposed to most Arbcom cases, but I feel this incident clearly shows that WP:CIVIL is either defunct or needs to be more concrete than it currently is. Policy exists for a reason. It's time for civility policy to either be demoted to a guideline, or given teeth. Either way, I see Arbcom as the only venue that has a reasonable chance to solve the problem. Really... this discussion has been going on for years. It's past time to solve it. Trusilver 17:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment by MONGO

I agree with Malleus that the rules are applied unevenly and inequitably.--MONGO 18:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Ks0stm

I'll just preface this by saying (perhaps with a slightly unwise choice of words given the situation) that I give absolutely zero fucks about this whole situation except for one thing: When an admin makes a controversial block, is it really that hard to wait and get a consensus before unblocking? I don't fault Black Kite, I just think that nine times out of ten it is going to be wise to wait longer than 16 minutes to unblock someone, because 16 minutes is hardly enough time for a discussion to really get going, let alone come to conclusion. I'm not saying that there aren't situations where I would do what Black Kite did, I'm just saying that this is most certainly not one of them given the high level of controversy surrounding the whole concept here. Anyway, if ArbCom takes this, I urge them 100% to look into the issue of rapid undoing of controversial administrator actions, but I don't think this particular incident rises to the level of needing examined in its own right. Ks0stm 18:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

@Jclemens: 👍 Like Ks0stm 21:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Yomangani

If ArbCom does take the case, a lot of time could be saved by just copying the previous case to a new name and changing the dates. Admittedly, that approach wouldn't give the opportunity for two months of character assassination and axe grinding under the guise of evidence, so you'd have to weigh up the pros and cons. Yomangani 18:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment by MBisanz

Please don't take this case. There are problems to resolve, but this isn't a starting fact-pattern from which Arbcom could ever hope to base a conclusive decision on. MBisanz 19:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Jtrainor

This is fairly straightforwards to me. Malleus, an editor with a long history of personal attacks and blocks for same, baited an admin that has no block history whatsoever, and then ran to WP:ANI to make a big scene, as though he were shocked, SHOCKED that anyone might react the way they did to him. Somehow me pointing this out caused people to gasp in outrage. That's the extent of my involvement in this matter. There's nothing here that couldn't be solved by either putting Malleus on civility parole or indeffing him.

On another note, there's been a long, long trend on Misplaced Pages in recent years of people who contribute a lot being allowed to skirt or ignore WP:CIVIL, while others get hammered down flat. This trend of favoritism needs to stop. Jtrainor (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Unscintillating

This is fairly straightforward to me.  Black Kite improperly took responsibility in an issue that was already correctly administratively resolved.  IMO, the other parties can be removed from the case.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Kiefer.Wolfowitz

  1. The user, Truesilver, who called Black Kite a "groupie" gives evidence above, without having retracted his insult. Where are the civility zealots?
  2. Malleus is correct, as acknowledged by Mark, that split infinitives are better avoided, generally, as a courtesy to readers whose first language is a Romance language.
  3. These kinds of witch-hunts have given Puritanism a bad name. Let us review the Westminster Larger Catechism:
  • A144: The duties required in the Ninth Commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever; a charitable esteem of our neighbors; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; sorrowing for, and covering of their infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocence; a ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, concerning them; discouraging talebearers, flatterers, and slanderers; love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth; keeping of lawful promises; studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.
  • A145: The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbors, as well as our own, especially in public judicature; giving false evidence, suborning false witnesses, wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth; passing unjust sentence, calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked; forgery, concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others; speaking the truth unseasonably, or maliciously to a wrong end, or perverting it to a wrong meaning, or in doubtful and equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice; speaking untruth, lying, slandering, backbiting, detracting, tale bearing, whispering, scoffing, reviling, rash, harsh, and partial censuring; misconstructing intentions, words, and actions; flattering, vainglorious boasting, thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others; denying the gifts and graces of God; aggravating smaller faults; hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession; unnecessary discovering of infirmities; raising false rumors, receiving and countenancing evil reports, and stopping our ears against just defense; evil suspicion; envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any, endeavoring or desiring to impair it, rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy; scornful contempt, fond admiration; breach of lawful promises; neglecting such things as are of good report, and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering: What we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.

What more needs to be said? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/1/0/4)

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

  • Awaiting statements, which ideally should address whether a useful outcome could result if a case is accepted, and if so, what it might be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Not even sure where to start with this. I have a few questions - principally what Alanscotwalker (or indeed anyone) is expecting to happen here. Why Malleus waited so long to start the AN is a more specific one. He's alluded to Mark Arsten sending another email, which one would presume was also offensive in some way to Malleus. Do we know what that one said? What else had Malleus said by email? Is there any evidence of Mark threatening to block Malleus, not just tell him to eff off and die or whatever? Does anyone think it a good idea to block Mark Arsten? Why did Bongwarrior think it a good idea to block Malleus, and why did Black Kite think it a good idea to unblock? My usual position is that when editors who interact regularly go off at the deep end with each other, trouts all round is all that is needed. I honestly think it's much less damaging to the project than say civil pov pushing (which so easily turns into civil button pushing - oh look, just got another editor out of my way). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • While I generally agree with Elen that trouts all around would be generally applied in situations like this, after a while we have to realize that trouts just won't work. So, we're here.. and now we have to decide whether this is trout worthy, and whether a trout will solve the issues we're facing. SirFozzie (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • decline - the situation had settled down (in a fashion), with the two original antagonists moving on, when it was revived again on Jimbo's talk page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Awaiting statements, but I intend to vote for accepting this request. In Civility enforcement, we released an extensive collation of advice about fair criticism, involved and uninvolved administrators, and civility; we also made a general reminder to administrators (about precisely this sort of project-space drama) and admonished Malleus about his conduct. Evidently it was inadequate to give a narrative, advisory decision, and the community may require more effective action—frankly, for too long has this type of thing has been stealing our editors' time. However, I withhold my vote (for now) because I don't imagine rushed action will serve a modicum of good, and because I would like to hear thoughts from more of the community about the usefulness of arbitration to the present dispute. AGK 20:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Accept This is not about Malleus or Mark or any one particular admin or editor, it's about the fourth pillar and the abject and long-standing failure of the community to uphold it. It's really time to implement civility remedies with the same relative level of importance and expectation of adherence as our BLP and copyright policies, as uncomfortable as that may be. I'd even be willing to stipulate, prior to opening, that no individual sanctions will be forthcoming, if that's what it takes to help the community establish a clear set of expectations for all that can be applied going forward. And yes, I know the committee has failed to do so multiple times in the past; maybe now is the right time. Jclemens (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Psychotherapies

Initiated by Tijfo098 (talk) at 09:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Involved parties

This list is incomplete; you can help by adding missing items.
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Tijfo098

I'm asking ArbCom to help with the behavioral elements of a protracted dispute centered on three articles: Cognitive behavioral therapy, Psychoanalysis, and Family therapy. Content-wise, the main element of this dispute is the insertion in all three articles of a table made by CartoonDiablo. The dispute has been raging since June 2012 at least.

By all appearances, CartoonDiablo has edited tendentiously in this dispute reinserting the table multiple times in the various articles despite objections by others. More recently he has turned the table into a picture (of the table) in order to circumvent the prior consensus achieved at DRN, as noted here by a volunteer . CartoonDiablo also wikilawyered over the policy/guideline distinction and has been WP:FORUMSHOPing, every time looking for a new venue after his arguments were found unconvincing by previously uninvolved editors and dispute resolution volunteers. He has also disputed the closure of the DRN discussion(s), exasperating some volunteers. See the DRN talk page discussion .

It appears that by his dogged persistence, CartoonDiablo managed to drive off most other editors who had objected. Or at least they gave up arguing with him. Widescreen however has edit warred over the insertion of a POV tag over the table. (see ANI and ANEW reports) Widescreen's communication style has not helped his case at all; this was pointed out to him in the last ANI discussion. After that, CartoonDiablo editwarred with Snowded over the same stuff .

I have not taken part in the content discussion itself and I haven't formed an opinion on who is right about the content, but I have commented on the behavioral aspects in other fora, like ANI. Unfortunately, the nature of ANI discussions, filled with digressions aplenty, made it impossible for admins to act on anything besides the edit warring. Last man standing is not how content dispute resolution should work, I hope. I think ArbCom can easily stem the silliness with one or two topic bans. Given the WP:IDHT nature of the behavioral aspects of the dispute, I don't think RfC/U(s) would make any progress in solving any of this dispute, but would just prolong it. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Minor update: Now that SGCM mentioned there were three DRNs, I managed to find the missing (middle) one and added it to the list of attempts to solve the dispute. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by czarkoff

I'm not sure whether I am indeed a party to this dispute, as my participation is mostly limited to DRN cases (with the only exception of this edit IIRC). Regarding the case: though I regard CartoonDiablo's behaviour as gaming the system and wikilawyering, I don't think that the violations are severe enough for any administrative actions. In my opinion, the whole thing should be hammered in content dispute resolution. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Snowded

I'm not sure its an Arbcom case. What we have here is one editor who is on a mission to promote CBT over other approaches. In pursuit of this they have created a table and inserted in many articles. Any independent editor who looked at in on the DR case said it was OR/Synth and inappropriate but that was not accepted by CartoonDiablo who simply either edit warred, then argued s/he had used an image not a table, and is now arguing s/he has created a better image. What was needed was for the admins who looked at the edit waring to check some of the history. Reverting an editor can be edit waring, but when that editor has been through DR and has been rejected its simply enforcing a community decision. Whatever it's evident that CartoonDiablo will not give up his/her solitary mission but I would have thought there is more than enough discussion on this for an admin to simply review and advise him/her of what synthesis/OR is about and the need to get consensus before inserting controversial material ----Snowded 10:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTorq We have had three DRs on this issue which involved extensive discussion of the content issues around the table/image. All editors concluded the table/image should be replaced with text. We have an editor here who will use every channel to pursue a solitary goal in the hope that other editors simply give up. ----Snowded 09:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Widescreen

I'm from german Misplaced Pages. Thats why my english is not the best. Initially I have to say, that I haven't any experience with the ARBcom. I know the german de:Misplaced Pages:Schiedsgericht. I was never involved in such a proceed, but I know some jugedment of them. To cut the matter short: I'm against any contentual judgement of such a instance. It's improbable that any member of the arbcom has enogh knowledge about psychotherapy research to decide the verdict. If I can, I would refuse a jugdement by the arbcom.

So far. The conflict starded with the adding of a table, wich was selfmade by user CartoonDiablo. He added it in two articles. 1 Psycholanalysis, 2 Cognitive behavioral therapy. I reverted these alterations because it was clear to me, that the table represents the results of one study respectively govermental survey. That was not ballanced, because in psychotherapy research exists a lot of studies like this. Most of them with other results. It's one specification of this studie it trys to make a overview by select special findings in psychotherapy research. The study exclude other results who have a high relevance if you want to assess a psychothearpeutic treatment. The study itself is o.k. It's a reliable source. But if you mention only one study, the ballance is destroyed. It's not neccessary to cite these special survey because it recieves minor attantion by scientiffic circles. There are much better overwievs than this superficial one.

I try to explain this to CartoonDiablo but he doesn't understand that point and some edtiwars beginns. It was pure luck some other users gain attention on the conflict and also declared the problem to CartoonDiablo.

Than a unprecedented POV-Fight by CartoonDiablo beginns. 1. He circumvented the DRN-result what sayes the table should turn into prose by change the table into a picture. 2. Than he puts the picture back in the article. And wirtes some prose, which was mainly wrong 3. Than another editwar beginns. And CartoonDiablo puts the picture and the wrong prose in another articl, Family therapy. 4. Now other users generously try to reverted the prose and the table out of articles. I was blocked once for a week. 5. Than in the next DRN CartoonDiablo trys to change the picture by add other results of other studies. Whereas the initally table was selfmade, you can't find this table in the survey. It is WP:OR. Now he trys to include more studies in his table to rescue it.

All in all CartoonDiablo trys to overstate the survey. Thats POV as POV can. The argumentation of CartoonDiablo is awful. He asserted wrong things everybody with a minor knowledge of psychotheray research knows. The last POV-act was to add the picture of the table and the wrong prose in an article about psychotherapy research .

As far as I am concerned, CartoonDiabolo should be blocked. He doesn't understand the main principes of wikipedia. But the main reason is, his behavior after he was confronted with his lack of knowledge of the issue by other users. That wasn't serious. And got only one aim: enforce his own POV.

--WSC 12:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

One thing about the blame, my communication wasn't helpfull. I claim I know a lot about psychotherapy reserch. I'm not an real expert like a psychotherapy researcher, but I know enough to estimate such edits. I try to explain this to CartoonDiablo, but he won't accept the basic things I explain here above. There were no chance to have a target-aimed conversation. CartoonDiabolo always asserted things which were partially bloodcurdling nonsense. I'm also an experienced wikipedian. And I had such kinds of discussion already previously in this field in de:wp. There's no chance to have a real exchange with those kind of users. I had to repeat my arguments now 1. talk psychoanalysis, 2. talk CBT, 3. 1st DRN, 4. 2nd DRN 5. 3rd DRN, 6. 1st. noticeboard/incidents 7. 2nd noticeboard/incidents and now on an arbcom-case. I feel like a record. This all just because this user have an minor understandig of this research area and try to push this lousy study in different articles. A lot of other authors are also involved. Of course everyone has the right to be listend. Especially when it's about a putative POV-case. But I think everybody have to ask themself also if he really got the knowledge to dispute such thinks.

--WSC 20:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by So God created Manchester

Like Czarkoff, I'm an uninvolved editor that volunteers on DRN, and was involved in the second and third DRN requests as a third party editor. There have been concerns that CartoonDiablo has been tendentiously editing the Cognitive behavioral therapy, Psychoanalysis, and Family therapy articles to promote cognitive behaviour therapy and criticise the competing approaches, psychoanalysis and family therapy. Although the survey he cites is considered reliable, he highlights the results of the study in a way that is neither neutral or balanced, by using a table and image that gives the survey undue representation to promote a point view. The consensus was that the information should only be conveyed as prose, a consensus that, at least among the third party editors, was established in the second DRN case and further reinforced in the third. The source can be mentioned, but it must be done in a way that adheres to Misplaced Pages's core principle of neutrality.

I've further summarised the background of the dispute here. I don't think ArbCom is necessary at this point, but the editor should be encouraged to drop the stick. Although consensus can change over time, perpetuating a dispute can reach the point where it is no longer constructive. --SGCM (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Nobody Ent and Beestra that bringing the dispute to RfC or MedCom first is a better option. There have been some conduct issues, but it's still primarily a content dispute.--SGCM (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

@CartoonDiablo. The concerns raised in the DRN cases have been about neutrality, not the formatting or content of the image or table.
@Hersfold. The information could be included as prose. The source is reliable. The major complaint in the DRN cases, as I recall, was the undue representation of the claims of the source, which favours cognitive behaviour therapy, by highlighting it with a large image or table. Articles should describe different points of view, but they should be fairly represented and given due weight.--SGCM (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Nobody Ent

Content dispute, should be RFC'd before being brought to ArbCom. Nobody Ent 22:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

@Kirill, it is not the mandate of administrators to solve content disputes -- it's the mandate of the community. Failure to take action at ANI only means no admin action was appropriate, not that the community exhausted all means of dispute resolution (as explained far more eloquently by Beestra). Nobody Ent 12:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

@Hersfold Why should the community open an RFC -- they're kind of a hassle and take forever to resolve -- if they (or a subset of) can count on ArbCom to bail them out? If the community were able to deal with this, they probably would have by now. is really poor reasoning. Given the the community has not been able to deal with two hundred and fifty thousand {{unreferenced}} tags, are ya'll get to get on that, too? Taking a premature case is going to encourage more such cases -- rejecting it will send a message to work harder until all other avenues have been exhausted. Don't be a helicopter committee. Nobody Ent 18:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Beetstra

First, thank you AGK, SilkTork, Hersfold, NewYorkBrad and Elen of the Roads to avoid to repeat the recent case of railroading an editor by being overly greedy in accepting the case without waiting for statements. Unfortunately, we are only one accept vote short of accepting the case anyway, again without giving a decent time to all parties, and especially accused parties, to respond to the case (as I expected in a comment after the resolution of a previous case, 24 hours may be too short, editors may be away for a weekend, but that clearly does not matter in a case which is so pressing that a resolution is needed soon - it was mentioned there that that was a once off ...). Maybe the clue is in Hersfold's remark (though I am sure there are other things arbitrators can do than just fiddle their thumbs).

Regarding the need for a resolution, I do not see any attempt for an RfC to get outside input, I do not see any attempt to get mediation. The accused editor does not have any community sanctions regarding events that lead to this case, neither adminstrative sanctions were applied to the editor (e.g. the block log regarding events relating to this case). The community is far from exhausted in their methods to resolve the issue. The arbitration committee is not for the resolution of all disputes, it is there as a final step in the whole dispute resolution process, where all other steps have failed. Here, the last step until now is Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard, and as stated there "What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled...." (my emphasis). Get sufficient input in an RfC and resolve the issue in that way. If that doesn't work then independent editors can discuss whether community sanctions will resolve the issue.

As suggested by all but the filing party (and maybe except Widescreen): there seems hardly need for a case. --Dirk Beetstra 06:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC) Expanded. --Dirk Beetstra 07:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Casliber. --Dirk Beetstra 10:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

@Elen: thank you, but you don't have to inform me of that. I guess you know which part of the community should be addressed. --Dirk Beetstra 15:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

@Hersfold: Since you are already surethink that CartoonDiablo is guilty, and since you think that it is unnecessary that the community resolves this, why not propose to settle this by motion, block and ban CartoonDiablo, so your collegues and you can go back to fiddling with your thumbs again? --Dirk Beetstra 19:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

@Hersfold: You singled out CartoonDiablo there, you say that they is the one that is having WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and refusal-to-drop-the-stick issues' - that is, you are predetermined at looking for fault with CartoonDiablo. You should not be looking for fault with CartoonDiablo, you should keep an open mind with respect to all parties as being possible editors with whom the fault could be (and even consider fault with the community). So yes, you obviously already think that CartoonDiablo is guilty. And you are right, that is already a long established procedure by ArbCom (seen that again 3 Arbitrators accept the case before all parties can comment - someone is complaining so there must be reason to start a case, we obviously do not need to examine whether there really is need for a case). --Dirk Beetstra 19:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

@Hersfold: We are here to establish whether a case is necessary. We have procedures for that. ArbCom is the last step in the dispute resolution where all other steps have failed (with maybe the exception of gross admin misconduct). That is procedure. Again, Arbitration is not dispute resolution, Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. In this case, there has been no mediation, there has been no RfC, the accused parties have not been sanctioned by the community, not even blocked for 'bad' behaviour, and you are telling us about following procedure. I am trying here to say, and I said that in my initial statement, that this is again a case that is not ready for Arbitration, but where certain members (and not only you, Hersfold, there were three accept votes before all involved parties could comment) of the Arbitration committee are ignoring procedure. --Dirk Beetstra 05:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC) adapted. --Dirk Beetstra 05:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

@JClemens: "This case, if opened, should serve as an appropriate venue to channel the community's expectations into actionable principles which would make future such disputes resolvable at a much lower level." - ArbCom is the last step in dispute resolution, not an intermediate one, or an even lower level. What is next, you go look around, see an admin who is doing something that is maybe questionable, and without any form of community input, you start a case on them? --Dirk Beetstra 05:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

@NewYorkBrad: Thank you for that analysis. I do agree with you, but there is a problem here. I will however explain what I mean. Compare:

While this does not appear to be a particularly complex dispute at first glance, the fact that the administrators who have reviewed it at AN/I and elsewhere have not been able to resolve it suggests either that there may be some nuances that require more careful examination or that the administrator corps is uncertain of how best to approach the matter. In either case, we should be able to assist in finding a resolution.

from Kirill with

Accept to examine the conduct of involved users, particularly CartoonDiablo. ... As it stands, I'm seeing what looks like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and refusal-to-drop-the-stick issues from CartoonDiablo that may merit some form of restriction better-suited towards correcting said behavior than a simple block.

from Hersfold. Kirill also accepts the case (so I think it is a fair comparison, I disagree with both accepts equally), but does that in neutral wording to say where they are going to look at. No personalisation. However, Hersfold pinpoints it, twice, on CartoonDiablo. It is probably not Hersfolds intention, but that gives the appearance to find fault with CartoonDiablo. That gives conformational bias, and if there is a case in favour of CartoonDiablo's side, all the evidence of the accusing parties needs to show is IDIDNTHEARTHAT and refusal-to-drop-the-stick issues. Moreover, there is a likelyhood that anything that looks like IDIDNTHEARTHAT or refusal-to-drop-the-stick issues may get WP:UNDUE weight. --Dirk Beetstra 18:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC) If this was a real-life jury in court where one member would express predetermination to find fault with one of the parties, the whole of the jury would be dismissed and a new jury elected. --Dirk Beetstra 19:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

@Elen: that is a perfect example of a complete misinterpretation of my comment. And yes, you have a right to take a case, but a commitment to the community to observe procedure in that, and to do that in a fair way. Get used to it. --Dirk Beetstra 19:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by CartoonDiablo

The main issue is over an image (previously a chart admittedly with errors) that talks about the effectiveness of three psychotherapies. Based on the studies mentioned prior in dispute resolution, this image represents (or intends to represent) the scientific consensus for the effectiveness of the three methods.

There are two objections over this, one over the content of the image (the science or consensus of it) and one over the format. To address the latter, the format seems clear and unproblematic, it has been used for other images about the same topic (and even some tables). This leaves the problem of scientific consensus; based on the studies, the science displayed in the image is backed up by the US and French governments and is, to the best of my knowledge, the scientific consensus surrounding the topic of the image.

I agree the dispute over it has been long and drawn out but I think the image is important for representing the science of the topic and should stay since no text can summarize the consensus in whole. If it's erroneous and not the consensus, then I am willing to start over and get it pre-approved via consensus before putting it into an article.

The other suggestion I have is if it's difficult to culminate all the research for all three psychotheries, to have it split into three different images, one for each psychotherapy. As an image(s), each can be updated if the consensus around them changes. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

@Hersfold Yeah I'd say the assessment is accurate and unfortunately it looks like it'll be unresolved unless a ruling can be given one way or another. I can see reasons for changing the image but the reasons to exclude it don't work especially with the examples I've given. The only real way for me to be convinced to remove the image is a ruling here or on third opinion/RFC. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Mirokado

Looking at CartoonDiablo's links discussing format, there is an example of an image of a graph, clearly nothing to do with the format of a table, and a link to an article containing two wiki tables and no images. I see no justification whatsoever for an image of a textual table, this must be replaced by a wikitable for accessibility reasons if the presentation of this data as a table has consensus (no comment about that). I don't see the origin of the "little or no effect" entries in the original table linked in the media file: the wiki table would also provide a better opportunity to clarify the sources of the information. --Mirokado (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Hammersoft

I find it highly objectionable that a sitting arbitrator for a case would make a pre-judgment as to the guilt of a party before the case has seen an evidence phase. This case is not even open yet, but Hersfold seems quite certain that CartoonDiablo is guilty and wants to accept the case so as to get a formal remedy in place to address this guilt. This decidedly sets the table against CartoonDiablo. Any pretense of fairness is gone.

While I cite Hersfold's edit in this case, it is far from isolated. I do not fault Hersfold nor do I mean to bring special attention to Hersfold. Rather, I fault we the community that allow ArbCom to act in this way. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

  • @Hersfold: Take it from CD's perspective. Put yourself in his shoes. It is not necessary for you to vote to accept a case and call out CD's behavior in particular in doing so. You ask me to assume good faith. you can do the same with CD, in that there very well could be a reasonable explanation for his behavior. The case should be approached neutrally. Your acceptance statement does not do so. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • @Hersfold followup: I will not remove them as they are directly pertinent to this case. To have a statement directly against CD in your acceptance statement is wrong. I will remove my comments here when you refactor your acceptance statement to provide a level and fair table for CD to participate. Fair enough? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

  • Elen's suggestion of a content-based RfC is reasonable. The concern that the community will not be able to deal with this is premature.
  • Newyorkbrad mentioned Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Henri Coanda, a case from March 2011. He may be thinking that there are some cases focused on just a single editor that still deserve Arbcom attention. I submit that the Coanda case was way more scary than this one. The committee only took three days to agree to open a case, and they did so on an 11-0 vote.
  • Jclemens has suggested that the committee might use this case to channel the community's thinking about civil POV pushing. This seems a trifle ambitious. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/4/0/3)

  • Accept. While this does not appear to be a particularly complex dispute at first glance, the fact that the administrators who have reviewed it at AN/I and elsewhere have not been able to resolve it suggests either that there may be some nuances that require more careful examination or that the administrator corps is uncertain of how best to approach the matter. In either case, we should be able to assist in finding a resolution. Kirill  12:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Accept. Kirill sums it up well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC) ok hold for the time being as it looks like discussion is ongoing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Awaiting statements by the other disputants, as well as any observations and comments by uninvolved editors. AGK 13:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline. Arbitration is for disputes which the community is unlikely, as best we can tell, to resolve (at all, or without excessive time and effort). The community could resolve this dispute with little drama, and I believe it could do so with a relatively small investment of time. AGK 19:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • While we won't get involved in the appropriateness of the table in question, we can look into the behaviour of those in dispute over its inclusion. However, if the parties, CartoonDiablo in particular, agree to accept today's recommendation to convert the information into prose, then the matter will be resolved, and I don't think there would be a need to open an ArbCom case. Awaiting statements. SilkTork 14:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    • There appears to be a consensus of views that what is required here is a RfC on the table data rather than an ArbCom case. And, as Elen indicates, if anyone does not follow the consensus of that RfC and/or edit wars at any point then any uninvolved admin could use their judgement to fully protect the affected articles and/or block those editors causing disruption. I think it might be as well to keep this request open, perhaps in a collapsed box, until an RfC is satisfactorily concluded, just in case things don't work out. SilkTork 08:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
      • If there is a reluctance or an inability by the community to deal with this issue then it would fall on the Committee to look into it; but I'm not seeing yet that this issue has been fully addressed by the community. I'd like to make it clear to CartoonDiablo that we would not be making any recommendation regarding the table - so that matter would remain unresolved at the end of this case. We would be looking purely at the conduct of people, and, if necessary, giving sanctions to those whose behaviour has been a cause for concern. It's worth picking up on what Hersfold has said below, that based on a quick examination of the events so far, CartoonDiablo's conduct appears to be a cause for concern, and at this stage a topic-ban would be a consideration. If CartoonDiablo is not satisfied with the discussions that so far have taken place on the table and would like that matter to be examined thoroughly, then I strongly recommended he opens a RfC with a commitment that he will follow the outcome. While people have been saying that there have been several DRN cases opened, I note that only one of those went to a satisfactory conclusion, so holding a RfC (rather than going straight to ArbCom) seems appropriate. SilkTork 10:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Awaiting statements, particularly from CartoonDiablo. My initial thoughts are that if CD doesn't agree to the recommendation SilkTork refers to, a case may be in order per Kirill; if he does, then hopefully the issue will be moot and the Committee can go back to twiddling our thumbs again. Hersfold non-admin 17:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Noting that the discussion at DRN appears to have been closed, with CartoonDiablo apparently intent on taking the discussion to another forum. I'm leaning further towards accepting now as a result, however will still withhold an actual vote until we hear from CD (or it becomes clear he intends not to make a statement). I've left him another reminder indicating that several of us are waiting to hear from him. Hersfold non-admin 18:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    • ...And it looks like he will be making one, so we'll see what he has to say. Hersfold non-admin 18:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
      • @CartoonDiablo: The Arbitration Committee will not rule on whether or not the table/image/content should be present in the article. What we're interested in is whether this is an unresolvable dispute due to the conduct of involved editors, or if there is a reasonable chance this could be resolved at a lower level of dispute resolution. Could your provide your views on that front? Additionally, you state that you're willing to start over on the table/image/whatever, but you do not seem to be willing to step down from the issue, despite a number of your colleages appearing to believe that the inclusion of this information in any form is inappropriate. Is this an accurate assessment? Hersfold non-admin 20:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Accept to examine the conduct of involved users, particularly CartoonDiablo. While I can understand why Elen and Phil are pushing for something else, it seems clear that this has been discussed several times, and yet nothing's been done. If the community were able to deal with this, they probably would have by now. As it stands, I'm seeing what looks like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and refusal-to-drop-the-stick issues from CartoonDiablo that may merit some form of restriction better-suited towards correcting said behavior than a simple block. Hersfold non-admin 15:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
          • Hammersoft, my statements are not a pre-judgment of CartoonDiablo or any other user. I said I was "seeing what looked like" problematic behavior that supported the allegations made by the filing editor; in order to determine if a case is necessary, arbitrators must investigate claims to see if they have any merit in the first place. That is all I have done. Should the case be opened, obviously all parties would have an opportunity to present evidence regarding their own actions and each other's, and (per very long-standing procedure) any determinations made in the case would be based on that evidence. Please assume good faith, and keep statements here strictly relevant to the dispute in question. Hersfold non-admin 18:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
          • @Dirk: So am I being just by waiting to hear from everyone or prejudicial by accepting the case once I have? Make up your mind, and don't misquote me. Again, as I told Hammersoft, this page and this section in particular are for discussing matters relevant to this dispute, not for getting on your respective soapboxes against this Committee. This is the last I will engage with either of you on this page, and I would ask that you remove your off-topic statements or move them to a more appropriate page. Hersfold non-admin 20:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
        • @ SGCM: Thanks for the clarification, it was a bit tricky to tell at times. Regardless, I think the above still applies. Hersfold non-admin 15:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Also awaiting statements, especially from CartoonDiablo. My preliminary view is that I am hoping that this dispute can be resolved short of arbitration in the near future, but otherwise it appears there may be grounds for a case. Probably the most relevant principles involved can be found in last year's Henri Coanda decision here and here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    • General comment (particularly to Hammersoft and to some extent Beetstra): I appreciate your concern that we not prejudge cases. If an arbitration case is opened, all parties and interested other editors have a full opportunity to present evidence and be heard. At the same time, because it is our decision in the first place whether or not to accept a case, it is inevitable that arbitrators are going to express their preliminary views as of the time they vote on accepting the case, in the course of doing so. By definition, we don't accept a case unless we believe there is some sort of significant issue that warrants one. I think most of the community would prefer for arbitrators to explain what we think the nature of that problem might be, as opposed to just casting naked votes of "Accept" or "Reject." If nothing else, such comments allow the participants to know how they might best focus their evidence presentations, or what they might do while the case is still on this page that might head off the need for a case (as I still would like to see happen here). It's also worth bearing in mind that in most Misplaced Pages arbitrations (excluding only those involving disputed allegations of socking, off-wiki harassment or COI, etc.), the evidence to be evaluated is all contained on-wiki, so there is generally a reasonable basis for preliminary, non-binding, non-final views to be expressed at this stage. The views expressed at this stage are tentative and I can think of several cases in which the evidence and full consideration has changed my initial reaction to the statements. (As a sidenote, for those who like to compare ArbCom to real-world courts, although such an analogy should not be overused or oversimplified: in real US courts, a judge's preliminary views on the merits of a case, expressed in court while adjudicating an early stage of the case, do not generally disqualify the judge from the main stage of the case.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
    • The parties (and anyone else interested) should briefly update their statements to address whether progress is being made elsewhere toward resolving this dispute. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Awaiting a statement from CartoonDiablo. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Per Hersfold - CartoonDiablo, are you prepared to participate in a community process (DRN, RfC, Mediation.....) and accept the outcome whatever it is. Same question applies to the other parties, although several have already indicated a willingness to accept the outcome of a dispute resolution process. I'm still not particularly seeing anything that warrants an arbitration case at the moment - if it gets to a situation where one editor persists in edit warring against consensus, the remedy is routine admin action. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
      • @Beetstra, since he obviously hasn't got it yet. That persistent, circular logic view that Arbcom can't take a case without calling for evidence because that requires prejudgement, but can't call for evidence because that requires prejudgement, is just so much nonsense. If two members of the community present a case that the third is editing disruptively, Arbcom reserves the right to take the case in order to determine whether these accusations are correct. Get used to it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline. Lets have a content RfC so the community can make a consensus on this content. If anyone makes an edit war while that's going on, the usual administrator remedies are available. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Accept pretty much per Kirill. Courcelles 23:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline - I'd prefer that a content based Request for Content is attempted, and then if the dispute still isn't resolved, we could accept the case. However, to reiterate Hersfold's comment, the Arbitration Committee isn't going to make a decision on whether the table should be included or not, as content decisions are outside our remit. PhilKnight (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Accept While this particular problem may be resolved by the attendant discussions, ArbCom has not recently considered the limits of Civil POV pushing. This case, if opened, should serve as an appropriate venue to channel the community's expectations into actionable principles which would make future such disputes resolvable at a much lower level. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline as it looks like we may not be necessary, as long as other forms of DR may settle this. SirFozzie (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Accept - I've been watching for any further efforts of the community to resolve this, and none seem to be forthcoming, although there has been a MEDRS review on the talk page of the relevant article. The Psychotherapy article remains fully protected. The fact that this debate has been going on for months, through various dispute resolution attempts. It is time to take this one on. Risker (talk) 06:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)