Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions - 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 Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:37, 31 August 2009 view sourceGimmetrow (talk | contribs)Administrators45,380 edits →Statement by Gimmetrow← Previous edit Revision as of 01:41, 1 September 2009 view source Seddon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators11,036 edits declined "Arbitration Request by Logos5557"Next edit →
Line 114: Line 114:
=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) === === Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) ===
*'''Recuse'''. I have a clear opinion on this issue, both in the specific case and in terms of broader policy. I have also been involved in strong conflicts of opinion over the subject matter. --] (]) 20:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC) *'''Recuse'''. I have a clear opinion on this issue, both in the specific case and in terms of broader policy. I have also been involved in strong conflicts of opinion over the subject matter. --] (]) 20:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

== Arbitration Request by Logos5557 ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 09:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|Logos5557}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|Hans Adler}}
*{{admin|Dbachmann}}
<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*
*

;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->
*Link 1
*Link 2
=== Statement by Logos5557 ===
There is considerable amount of ], ] and accompanying incivility applied by ] and ]. Some other users might have been modelling them, both in this particular case and in some other cases. These inappropriate conducts are especially towards articles based primarily on channeling, paranormal, and the like subjects and related concepts. Treating channeling, paranormal etc. under fringe category with ], despite some expert knowledge's being needed but lacked, has become the usual approach in order to “” such topics.

This past arbcom ruling is either misinterpreted or does not seem to have been taken as binding by this group of users.

] and accompanying ] debates on Ra (channeled entity) article (which I will not “shove the whole thing back in somehow” contrary to some worries and beliefs), and some preliminary work on Fringe Theories Noticeboard provide adequate examples to misconducts.

Nobody is expected to be perfect and occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with being a user in wikipedia. In addition, this case might be just one of the plenty other misconducts occurring in wikipedia. However, I guess it is right to request the intervention of arbitration committee, for this is somehow a sustained one suggesting a pattern. Evidences will be supplied if the case is accepted. --] (]) 09:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

To clear misunderstandings; the aim of the request is not to save the article from deletion (therefore deletion review was not pursued), but to reach a more clear understanding on how to treat channeling, paranormal, and the like subjects and related concepts (I believe dispute resolution can not help, an authoritative ruling is needed). In addition to that, if there is gaming, wikilawyering and incivility, necessary measures & precautions can be taken. ] (]) 20:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Although Clause 3 reads "..you are not trying to prove your case at this time..", yet it seems better to record the diffs of misbehaviours, misconducts and poor judgements here: , , , , . ] (]) 12:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by Dbachmann ===
This is simple ] over the outcome of ], ], and now ], the unilateral userification of a SNOW case at AfD. The only wikilawyering party here is Logos5557 (check their contortions over trying to use non-free images in their userspace for more entertainment), now apparently making good on their threat to call on the arbcom if the community wouldn't let them get their way. Deletion (or merge) of ] has nothing whatsoever to do with the past arbcom decision on "paranormal" topics, as the article wasn't scrutinized for its nature of discussing a "paranormal" topic, but for its almost complete lack of notability or coverage in third party sources, pure and simple. "No notability - no article" holds for paranormal topics just like for any other field.
Recommend decline. --] <small>]</small> 10:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by Hans Adler ===
The first time that I am a named party in an arbitration request, and then it's such a boring case. I guess the inevitable result will be that the case is declined since Arbcom is not the first step of dispute resolution, and perhaps Logos5557 will get a little bit of helpful advice.

Logos5557 interprets earlier rulings as confirming their positions, and even mentioned their intention to request a case during a recent AfD. I am afraid I was one of several editors who answered without explaining why that is not appropriate. ] ] 20:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by {Party 3} ===

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.''

=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/9/1/0) ===
* '''Decline'''. No claim of actionable misbehavior, no mention of ], no previous dispute resolution: no case. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 17:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
* '''Decline''' per Coren. The other forums suggested, not arbitration, are the proper venue for any further consideration of this dispute. ] (]) 21:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
** I also generally agree with Carcharoth's comments below. ] (]) 17:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
* '''Decline''' per Coren. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 03:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' per Coren. ] (]) 03:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''. ] 04:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' though noting Hans Adler's note that lack of explanation at earlier venues may have contributed to this. Even if things are getting difficult, the best way to calm things down is to explain something clearly and in a way that engages with the other person, not brushing them off. Logos5557, you refer to the prior case on paranormal topics. I suggest you try and ask for advice on interpretation of that case (e.g. if you think someone is in breach of a remedy in that case, file at ] - if admins there disagree with you, then it is likely your interpretation is wrong. If you still disagree, come back to ArbCom and ask for clarification (there is a different page for this), but bear in mind that if your views are markedly different to the conclusions reached in the case, we are unlikely to say anything very different to what was said back then. But before doing any of this, please discuss further with those you are in disagreement with. ] (]) 12:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
**Logos5557, thanks for the additional diffs. There is still no arbitration case to answer here, you need to deal with disputes at a lower level of dispute resolution and read Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines as to what constitutes suitable article content. Hans Adler, could you please refrain from using words and phrases that needlessly escalate disputes; words like "bullshit", "nonsense", "New Age freaks" and "cancerous articles". It is not difficult to tone down such descriptions to be less inflammatory and offensive. ] (]) 15:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''. We don't decide content, nor are we DRV. ] '']'' 14:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' per Coren. ] (] '''·''' ]) 13:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' per my colleagues. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 14:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
*'''Recuse'''. I participated in the XfD discussions. --] (]) 17:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


---- ----

Revision as of 01:41, 1 September 2009

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Catholic Church and Renaming   31 August 2009 {{{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
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: American politics 2 none (orig. case) 15 January 2025
Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Shortcuts

About this page

Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.


File an arbitration request


Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-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.


Catholic Church and Renaming

Initiated by Rockstone (talk) at 01:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties



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

Statement by Rockstone35

I have created this arbitration request to perserve my sanity, and the sanity of all those who have been involved in this now 4 month argument against the minority of users who have argued that the article should be renamed (and argued that the article should have stayed at) Roman Catholic Church. While I am a Catholic myself, the reasoning behind the name being changed to Catholic Church was valid in my eyes. The policies on naming conventions support the rename. Most of the time, the Church calls herself the Catholic Church, and most people refer to it as the same.

After consensus was reached that the article should be renamed to Catholic Church, many new people were up in arms. They looked for excuses to why the article renaming process was invalid. One user in particular, Cody777777, repeated the same argument many times without success.

And so, when the rename proposal back to Roman Catholic Church failed, several users too it upon themselves to change the naming guidelines.

Hopefully this insanity will end.

Thank you! --Rockstone (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: If I missed anyone, feel free to let me know (or add yourself to the case)

Yes, this request covers two separate things, those who want to change the naming policy, and those who refused to acknowledge consensus for the title. They are both intertwined. --Rockstone (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
@ Xandar, requesting sanctions or reprimands for those who are refusing to go with Consensus is important. --Rockstone (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by M

(Temporary comment - I can provide something appropriate to either dispute if we decide to go ahead with them.) There are two issues here, with one spilling into the other. There is the Catholic Church naming dispute, which I am uninvolved with, and may be better handled through an RfC, and there is the Naming conflict guideline, which I am involved with. The latter seems to be going just slightly better now that the ANI against Xandar was posted (only a day or so ago), so it may be too soon for this. In any case, the policy dispute should be resolved through an RfC, since it concerns what is or is not policy (determined by the community), rather than the interpretation or enforcement of policy (determined through dispute resolution).

It's a bit strange that this is being characterized as a policy change through excuses and the like - I made some of the first and biggest changes to that guideline, and as I said, I was entirely uninvolved in the Catholic Church dispute. In fact, I initially agreed with Xandar's position, until good reasons against it were provided.

At the moment, I think this might be premature, and that the two issues should be kept separate: it is dangerous to mix a specific article's dispute into a policy page.    M   01:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by mostly uninvolved Karanacs

I haven't followed this article in the past few months, but this appears to be a continuation of a problem that has persisted on this article for over a year.

The key questions I see in this matter are some that Arbitration probably cannot resolve:

  • A clarification of WP:NPOV and WP:V, especially in relation to how to balance information on how an entity sees itself vs how it is seen by other sources
  • How to determine which sources are reliable in which instances.

I believe that certain editors in this dispute are pushing a personal, pro-Catholic POV. These editors, in my view, have often misinterpreted numerous policies to meet their idea of what the article should say. (This is not to say that the misinterpretation is deliberate - I think there is a simple lack of understanding or refusal to understand.) They then often try to wear down other editors by repeating the same arguments ad nauseum, often with large blocks of text until editors are simply overwhelmed and give up. I gave up and unwatchlisted the article because I felt that policy was being flatly ignored in favor of "the truth" or "votes" in which ILIKEIT was the primary concern. However, I saw few instances in which the behavior was sanctionable (violations of CIVIL or NPA), and in most cases once warned the editor stops the personalization. .

Although I would love to see the article become less of a battleground so that effort could be spent on further improving the article, I don't think that typical Arbcom remedies are appropriate in this case. Karanacs (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sunray

It is not clear to me what is to be arbitrated here. The Catholic Church naming dispute is resolved. There was a successful mediation, a community-wide consultation and an RfC, all of which confirmed that the Church's name should be "Catholic Church." That one is OVER. There is now a dispute over the Naming Conflict guideline. Despite the tendency of some individuals to want to blow it up to epic proportions, the issues should be dealt with on the talk page of the guideline. If there is truly a dispute, the first step would logically be an RfC. Arbitration seems premature, at best. Sunray (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Shell Kinney

Its a bit unclear as to why I am named as a party; I assume this relates to my mediation of the disputes on the Catholic Church article which seems to have very little to do with the issue at hand. In regards to my interaction, a lengthy formal mediation produced a consensus for the article name and lead. The participants then took the extra step of bringing the consensus for the move to the wider community and the article was moved (by me) when the discussion closed. One or two participants who opposed the move (most notably User:Cody7777777 and User:Gimmetrow) refused to drop the dispute after this closure. Much more discussion and an additional RfC later, the outcome was unchanged. Since I have long since delisted the page from my watchlist, I'm not even certain I'm up to date on any current concerns. Unless this request is to examine the behavior of editors who refuse to drop this dispute, I fail to see what can be arbitrated here. Shell 16:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Pmanderson

The mediation is here; it did not begin as a move discussion, but about a single textual point in the header. It appears to have collected evidence (off-wiki; this was MedCom), and to have changed course in the middle of events, deciding to move the article, and on a six-month truce. This did not satisfy everyone in the mediation; some editors not invited to the mediation feel a perhaps justified grievance at being bound by a decision they did not take part in and evidence they cannot see. I do not know what took place after the mediation; it does not appear to have been widely advertised - for example, it does not seem to have been mentioned at RM. The recent move request was (correctly) closed as no consensus; where is the evidence that the move to the present title is based on consensus?

ArbCom may wish to take up solely the procedural questions here, which are more pressing than sanctions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Cody7777777

Most of my reasons for believing that the renaming of the article "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church", was done against Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines were posted during the recent discussion here, and also during the last phase of the mediation. It is true that I repeated the same arguments several times, but I did this, because it seemed to me, that most of them were ignored. (Also, in the recent request for moving the article back to "Roman Catholic Church", as far as I see, there was a considerable number of users who supported the old article title.) Cody7777777 (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Xandar

I don't think this is a correct request for arbitration. The events on the guideline Misplaced Pages:Naming conflict may require a community-wide settlement, but I do not think those events should be mixed up with the Catholic Church naming issue, which was properly settled during a successful six-month mediation. The two issues only relate tangentially, in that attempts are being made to change the naming convention in a way that could be seen helping one side in that, and other disputes. But the on-going naming-conflict dispute is largely a separate issue, and needs to be dealt with independently and on its own merits. Combining the two largely-unrelated and complex issues, would be totally unworkable. Xandar 20:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Vassyana

I remind the parties and arbitrators of the privileged nature of formal mediation. Parties, arbitrators, and clerks will need to take special care in this instance to distinguish actions during the RfC and other broader community discussion from discussions and actions directly under the aegis of formal mediation. --Vassyana (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

I've deleted the Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church and Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church because it's being cited several times here going against the privileged nature of mediation. As Vassyana notes above, parties shouldn't be using anything from the mediation case here so please remember this point when commenting further. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Gimmetrow

From what I can tell from this ANI discussion, this arbitration request has something to do with a dispute at WP:Naming conflict. I've not edited that guideline page recently; I have no edits on the current talkpage, and, indeed, I may never have edited it, so it's a little unclear why I'm named. Contrary to what Shell said above, I have not opposed the retitle of the CC/RCC article, although I don't necessarily agree that WP:Naming conflict applies to the page retitle, and so I haven't been exactly supportive, either. I also don't think the CC/RCC page retitle needs arbitration at this time, although there are some other issues that are almost ripe. Gimmetrow 23:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

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

  • Recuse. I have a clear opinion on this issue, both in the specific case and in terms of broader policy. I have also been involved in strong conflicts of opinion over the subject matter. --Vassyana (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions Add topic