|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration |
A Request for Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The Arbitration process is governed by the Arbitration policy.
The committee accepts cases related to editors' conduct (including improper editing) where all other routes to agreement have failed, and makes rulings to address problems in the editorial community. However it will not make editorial statements or decisions about how articles should read ("content decisions"). Please do not ask the committee to make these kinds of decisions, as they will not do so.
Requests for Arbitration can also be used to present questions and requests related to previous closed cases. These include clarification of the intent and scope of a decision, appeals of past sanctions, and requests to amend remedies and enforcement measures.
For information about requesting Arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration guide, which contains important information. You may also wish to review the following:
The Committee will generally accept these types of cases without any previous formal dispute resolution measures being followed:
Otherwise, it is expected that other avenues of dispute resolution will have been exhausted before a case is filed—Arbitration is the last resort for conflicts, rather than the first.
| Before requesting arbitration, you should read and familiarize yourself with the Arbitration guide, which covers when cases will be accepted, presenting a case, and what to expect. Then, read the following instructions:
To make a request, please follow these steps:
This is not a page for discussion.
|
| Evidence and Workshop | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (•/ t) | (p/ t) | (w/ t) | PHG (t) | 03 Dec 2008 | DB | |
| (•/ t) | (p/ t) | (w/ t) | Cold fusion (t) | 14 Nov 2008 | TZ | |
| Voting | ||||||
| (•/ t) | (e/ t) | (w/ t) | Piotrus 2 (t) | 16 Nov 2008 | RP | |
| Motion to close or dismiss | ||||||
| (•/ t) | (e/ t) | (w/ t) | Kuban Kazak-Hillock65 (t) | 2 Dec 2008 | TZ | |
| Recently closed (see all) | ||||||
| — | ||||||
|
Initials indicate the Clerks involved with the case. See also motions in previous cases. |
||||||
Initiated by -- Evertype·✆ at 19:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
And this is just a selection of articles and sections about this issue.
This dispute has been a festering boil on the neck of the Wikipedia for four years now. A hornet's nest of passive-aggressivity, good faith, bad faith, veiled hatred, not-so-veiled hatred, honest attempts at compromise, wilful stonewalling, filibustering, backing and forthing, to-ing and fro-ing, and endless bickering. The frustration level of everyone involved is high, so high that a number of editors—good editors—have threatened to withdraw from editing these articles, and some have retired already. Over the past few weeks, the word "arbitration" has come up again and again. I have made so bold as to file this request for arbitration. I trust that it is in order.
Status quo:
A number of proposed re-arrangements have been made. One which was implemented a few days ago (though reversed today) was this:
Attempts at discussion and consensus lead inevitably to a lack of consensus. Whenever consensus rears its head, others come in saying there is no consensus. My own proposal for compromise was based on negotiation strategy: agree to what you can, even if it's not your preference. Compromise!
The above was 497 words; we are asked to write 500. For the love of Ireland, so that we can work to improve the articles instead of arguing about their names, I ask the Arbitration Committee to agree to hear this case and give us a solution. I have listed below a good selection of those who have been on both sides of the debate. Thank you for your consideration.
I fully endorse the comments by Evertype. There is no way that any agreement will be reached by the editors involved. Old disputes within Ireland are being fought out on these pages, often after they have been resolved in real life. Several of the editors involved are under editing restrictions on other articles connected with Ireland. If this is not subject to some objective arbitration then it will keep coming back again, and again and again. --Snowded TALK 21:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I do not endorse this, while this is somewhat related to one of the key disputes of The Troubles (exactly what the Ireland article should point to, the island, the Republic of Ireland, so on and so forth). There was a Requested Move discussion that is the root of this. You notice that there is no diffs of user conduct in the request for Arbitration, only a demand that ArbCom provide an answer to what the Ireland article should point to. I would recommend that instead of yet again fighting over these issues in Arbitration and attempting to bring it here to win a content dispute by brute (ArbCom) force, that they go back and not come back until they get it right. SirFozzie (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I see that Rockpocket has posted several diffs of user conduct by various folks that had the effect of inflaming discussion and making finding consensus much more difficult. I would support a limited case, aimed at (and only at) looking at the examples of user conduct that break Wikipedia policies, and then see what the people can do when the worst actors are removed. SirFozzie (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, an apology in advance - I have just become a father again and so am somewhat busy off-wiki, so I apologise if my responses are slow and for my lack of knowledge of events over the last few days of this ongoing mess. Evertype's summary is a fair and balanced one and I join Snowded in fully endorsing it. I feel I should add a few words about the task force and my own involvement in this sorry tale.
I've been aware, but not involved in, this ongoing situation for quite some time. When User:Matt Lewis set up a task force for interested editors to discuss the usage of the term "Ireland", both within article texts and of course in article titles, I saw this as a very positive step - a central point of discussion, where previously it had taken place on a variety of pages across several namespaces, and a blank sheet of paper with which to start. I had no preferences regarding the article names, but simply decided to keep an eye on procedings - partly out of interest and partly as an admin duty.
The post by User:Ddstretch was one that made perfect sense, as it basically called all editors to follow existing guidelines unless there was a really good reason to ignore all rules. Although much discussion took place after his post, no such reason was forthcoming. The task force then conducted a series of polls, with the outcome in each case reaching broad agreement with DDstretch's original proposal - that Ireland should be a disambiguation page. This broad agreement encompassed editors who had previously and consistently been on oppoisite sides of arguments around the infamous Troubles case, the British Isles naming dispute, etc., so this was enormously encouraging - especially since the initiation of the task force, and notification of these latest discussions and polls, had been clearly signalled on the relevant article talk pages.
I then initiated polls on the article talk pages themselves, to rubber-stamp the agreement that had been accomplished. What happened next is there for all to see - I am utterly baffled that editors who proclaim to feel so strongly about these issues failed to get involved in the task force discussions and to shape the debate until the very last hurdle - the amount of time and effort their behaviour has wasted is immense, and there's still no apparent reason why WP:D should not be implemented in this case other than shear weight of votes (we're a meritocracy not a democracy so that's not a reason as far as I'm concerned). I therefore commend Evertype for making this request as this issue really does need a once-and-for-all ruling that's made to stick and puts and end to the enormous quantities of wasted effort that could be put to better use, and only a body like ArbCom have the authority to do that. waggers (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I too, like Snowded, endorse the the comments by Evertype. We need a solution, or rather a formal decision, on how to take this forwards. My findings are:
I'm not listed as in involved party, but I have dipped my toes in Irish/British geography issues from time-to-time. Again, my main concern is that the debates need to be closed for the good of Wikipedia now. We need a strong, tough decision to be made and respected. --Jza84 | Talk 21:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why I'm named as an "involved" party, especially as number two, just below the person who opened this request, and just above everyone else, who is rightfully named in alphabetical order. I closed a move request. Half of the people -- not unexpectedly -- didn't like that. After barraging my page with comments, they went to ANI and eventually got the move reversed. Okay... I'm not complaining. I have no problem with getting a move overturned that other uninvolved (let me repeat, uninvolved) people generally think was wrong. I believe the current result is more precarious than the one I (unsuccessfully) implemented, but I am not bothered at all by the reversal. So... 'involved' is not appropriate here at all; I have no opinion on the positions in this debate. -- tariqabjotu 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think the Task Force is the place to resolve this. I think that compromise is possible and that compromise involves any change in the name of the Republic of Ireland article being accompanied by an agreed policy that recognises that Republic of Ireland is a perfectly legitimate and sensible term to use in the text of the many articles where there is a risk of ambiguity. Regarding the Ireland article, I agree with Deacon of Pndapetzim that Ireland should be treated like Korea, China, etc., since the primary meaning of Ireland is for the island and historical social/political entity and not the current state which occupies only part of Ireland. I've no objection to radical changes to the text of that article.
As for whether arbitration will help, I simply don't know. If editors are willing to make what I think is the obvious compromise noted above, there should be no need. Mooretwin (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think ArbCom can, or should, decide which article resides at which title. I do think ArbCom could, perhaps, put some enforceable remedies in place to assist those willing to discuss, negotiate and compromise in good faith, and deter those ideologues, banned editors and agitators who see this as another battleground in the ongoing British/Irish Troubles.
I therefore urge ArbCom to consider hearing this with a view towards issuing a remedy, like the one resulting from the Troubles ArbCom, than will help foster an environment where this can be resolved by good faith editors. Rockpocket 01:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Evertype sums up well but I'd like to add that a lot of the confusion and controversy also stems from the fact that the term "Republic of Ireland" is the legal and proper term for the state of Ireland within the UK. But only within the UK - it is British law. Everywhere else on the planet uses the correct name - Ireland. Plus all the major institutions from EU, NATO, World Bank, Olympic Committee, etc, uses the correct name - Ireland. Mooretwins comments above are flat wrong - this is not the "English Wikipedia", it is the "English-language Wikipedia". This Arbcom case is very necessary. Notwithstanding Rockpocket's comments above, it's also a fact that many admins are involved and are not neutral. The reversals in particular have been performed by an involved admin editor, Deacon of Pndapetzim who opposed changes in the past[15]. Arbcom must take this case, and settle this issue once and for all. Over 4 years of edit warring - every other route has been tried. I do not recommend a ruling like "The Troubles" since this dispute mainly centres around creating a binding resolution on terminology, not POV or content factuality. --HighKing (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Can't we just limit how quickly a new move request may be filed after a previous one was closed, then allow the issue of naming to be revisited as often as some parties like through the normal route (WP:RM)? Discussion about a move that requires the moving of other pages should be centralised at the appropriate article (Talk:Ireland in this case). Starting from the status quo ante recently reinstated by Deacon, we can allow a move request—one move request—to be filed any time now, but impose a limit on how much time must elapse before the issue can be revisited once the latest request has been closed. I think it is perfectly appropriate that the issue be constantly revisited, semper reformanda. It just needs to be allowed to lie fallow for a time, and discussion must be centralised at Talk:Ireland whenever that article is implicated in the move request. This solution is purely procedural. A minimum wait time between moves would only have to be chosen: 3, 6, 12 months, or more. Srnec (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure what ArbCom is being asked to arbutrate here. The the article naming scheme here is contentious is not in doubt but not concrete issues of edit-warring or incivility have been cited. Even if an Arb backed "final decision process" was started, I don't see how it could be truly final given the constant turnover of editors who will naturally wonder why whichever scheme we pick deviates from what they consider natural and correct, and the simple fact that consensus can change. ArbCom and the community simple lack the power the bind future communities from making different decisions, though they can counsel against it for reasons of stability. I urge rejection on the gorunds that no usefull remedies can be adopted. If there were a content or naming dispute court of last resort this could be sent there but ArbCom is not the place for it. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not mentioned as a party here but have been involved in the past loosely and over the past few days. I do think an arbcom looking at the issues, and not at the editors, would be an excellent thing. Though I am not sure if that is within the remit of ArbCom, to focus just on the content/issues at hand. I was hoping a fresh RM could just be run rather than this going but people do seem to be at what you might call 'fever pitch' and this is a better option than letting people go crazy and get themselves blocked. Certainly the idea of a limit as to the time between move requests on these pages would be appreciaed, just to stop it flipping back and forth or in the constant grind it is in now. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I became unwillingly involved in this via other disputes dealt with previously by Arbcom—in particular, the use of "British Isles" disputes. This dispute was drawn to my attention, and, reading it, I appreciated why many administrators had not opted to be involved. However, I considered it useful to try to suggest relying solely on a particular strict interpretation of wikipedia's policies about disambiguation to resolve the matter as a compromise, as this would allow editors to avoid the unhelpful nature of the exchanges when accusations about motives, political agenda, and so on, tended to, or completely swamped the discussion. Waggers then took my "Statement and (semi-)formal proposal by DDstretch" found here and made an initial formal proposal.
I have kept out of much of the discussion except (as far as I recall) to counter erroneous interpretations of solutions that have been previously adopted on wikipedia and faulty assumptions about wikilinking following the disambiguation solution I suggested.
My view is that any closure of the various polls was bound to be controversial, because the drama accompanying many entrenched positions seems to have become the major driving factor behind the matter, leaving the core wikipedia principles rather in the background (this is despite people calling upon them to justify one or other of their preferred solutions). I have stayed out of the discussions about the validity or otherwise of the page moves and their reversal, as the accusations of bias and being involved I thought might follow would only tend to further inflame this desperately poor situation. I agree with previous comments that any administrator who gets involved and who has not already been accused, quickly becomes seen as biased, partial, pursuing their own agenda (even when that agenda is said to be "hidden" and not known even by that administrator). In fact, the whole area is mired in behaviour that runs counter to WP:NPA in spirit if not in fact. The disruption brought about by this dispute cannot easily be contained, and it infects or potentially will infect other areas.
Some involvement by a greater authority here is urgently needed I suggest, if only to de-personalize the attacks that seem to be directed at anyone who tries to suggest resolutions of any kind. Arbcom may think the job is very difficult, perhaps even too difficult, and individual members may be loathe to agree to get involved, but I suggest that part of their job on Arbcom is to take on difficult disputes, such as this, and that trying to provide a more senior context of authority within which new approaches, or old approaches with more authority, can be explored would seem to be exactly what the bulk of wikpedia editors would expect them to be doing. DDStretch (talk) 11:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I do not support the belief that an arbcom is neccessary.
The issue is controversial, but repeated polls have not resulted in a change and there is little an arbcom can accomplish apart from yet more forum shopping.
This is a content issue and therefore outside the limits of arbcom. Djegan (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I ask the arbitrators to note that there has been no dispute resolution apart from the talk page. The involvement of editors outside the current troubled group should be attempted first before Arbcom becomes involved. There is no reason to leap-frog the well established principle of attempting dispute resolution fully before coming here. JodyB talk 11:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I would hope that the ArbCom accepts this case; if nothing else, there may have been improper use of admin rights (protection and moving protected pages). Stifle (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Another classic example of User:Moreschi/The Plague. Seeing that conflicts of this type have afflicted Wikipedia since its inception, it might be time to reconsider policies. Wikipedia:Don't even think about getting passionate over nationalist topics or you'll get blocked without further discussion, perhaps? Kosebamse (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
At heart this is a content dispute but as often happens tangential issues of user conduct have emerged. I think no one is served by commingling these issues with the content dispute, and I have no interest in the user conduct issues, so I will speak only to the content dispute. I have a longstanding interest in disambiguation pages. I was asked by Matt Lewis to comment on the current requested move of Ireland and other pages. The history there is messy, to say the least. I am dismayed by the extent to which this content dispute spills over into Wikipedia article infrastructure. An example is the contentious (and unnecessary) use of a map on Ireland (disambiguation). The heart of the content dispute seems to be whether the political entity known as both Ireland and the Republic of Ireland can occupy the Wikipedia article title Ireland, or whether that article title should be occupied by the island known as Ireland, or by a disambiguation page. I think this dispute has gone on so long in part because it has been cast in terms of win/lose, rather than resolution, with "consensus" being defined as majority rule or a ruling by a higher power. I think it is a mistake to handle this content dispute via arbitration rather than mediation. --Una Smith (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Dear ArbCom - please treat this in a regular fashion as a conduct issue. Find some way to score and rank and test editors on their fitness to contribute to and take this decision themselves. Make sure that the yard-sticks used concern scholarship more than civility (which is too often a cover for gaming). Think product more than process and thereby lay the ground for better articles everywhere. A solution along these lines will save you hours of ongoing and escalating aggravation at other ethnic-based topic disputes. Remember, more and more people are finding they do all their research in the English Language (you may blame that damn Wikipedia for this trend!). Disputes like this one are going to multiply, even in the short term. PRtalk 17:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I very much regret the language in which this this request is couched. A request for arbitration should begin with a dispassionate statement of the case. "This dispute has been a festering boil on the neck of the Wikipedia..." hardly qualifies! The requester is one of a very small number of editors who have progressively turned up the temperature over the last few months, depite him saying to me only a few days ago, "In the Real World there isn't so much discussion about these issues."[16]. If there is not much discussion in the RW, what was the need for the battle royal of recent weeks, and the constant assertion that Wikipedia is at "breaking point"?[17] I don't personally believe that any party has behaved badly, but the imflaming of passions caused by this culture of crisis is disruptive, and may need to be dealt with as a conduct issue. As far as the name issue itself is concerned, my views are here (note: I am not from Northern Ireland and I am not known as a unionist sympathiser), and I may choose to elaborate on them in this forum at a later date. Scolaire (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I have included myself as a party to the case. Pace Daniel, I do not see any link between this matter and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Mentorship, but if I'm wrong just let me know and I'll happily resign.
The closer indicated here that he was unwilling to remedy himself the very large number of broken links his moves had created. "You can't be asking me to fix the thousands of links ...". But I was. And anyone closing a CfD or IfD or AfD would be expected to tidy the links up, either on their own or by getting a bot to do it. Pointing all of the tens of thousands of links from a top-500-viewed page to a disambiguation page is a mistake. Mistakes happen. Refusing to do anything when told what's wrong and how to fix it is something else.
The arbitration committee doesn't do content disputes. An poorly executed move for which there was no consensus save one of the proposals of a self-appointed committee is not egregious, and neither is reversing it, so there's no admin conduct to consider either. RfC? Mediation? No sign of those. And what Flo's diffs show I have no idea. Rockpocket's are, on the whole, much more interesting. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top.
 |
How to file a request (please use this format!):
This is not a page for discussion.
|
|
Active Clarifications and other requests (rc • • view)
|
||||||
| Requests for clarification | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (3 December 2008) | SlimVirgin-Lar | status: Active | ||||
| Requests to amend prior cases | ||||||
| (29 November 2008) | PHG | status: Active | ||||
| (23 November 2008) | Alastair Haines | status: Voting | ||||
| (16 November 2008) | Jack Merridew | status: Voting | ||||
| (12 November 2008) | Matthew Hoffman | needs Arbs | ||||
|
Listed dates refer to the time at which the thread was filed. "Needs arbs" means "thread needs arbitrator attention". |
||||||
This is a request to clarify the status of Finding of Fact #5. Proposed finding #5, SlimVirgin's conduct received a final vote tally of 5 in favor, 3 opposed and one abstention. WIth 11 active arbitrators on the case, the abstention reduced the number of active arbitrators on that proposal to 10; however with 10 the required majority is still 6. The finding is recording as having passed 5-3 with one abstention.
This finding has been cited recently against SlimVirgin in another matter. I believe this was an honest mistake or confusion but the finding needs to be vacated or revoted.
Note: This matter was recently posted to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration but the discussion was sidetracked by ElinorD's objections to the case in general and the subsequent discussion. I respectfully ask that ElinorD and other interested editors to allow this clarification to stay focused on the single issue presented at this time. Thatcher 12:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Speaking on something of an official note here (or wearing my Clerk hat, at least).
There has been a clear metric miscalculation on the finding in question. With the thinking being that particular aspect of the SlimVirgin-Lar decision was at no point assented to by the Committee (as per this tally), I have run with Brad's suggestion (below) and deleted the finding from the final decision.
I have engaged in some light publicity of this adjustment — in the vein that notifications of general case closures are made in — at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration. (I am willing to post notifications at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or at similar pages upon request.)
AGK 21:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)