Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 131: Line 131:


=== Statement by Alanscottwalker ===
=== Statement by Alanscottwalker ===
In the sprit of [[WP:BLP]], I ask the committee or the clerks, to change the name of this case to eliminate the name of a living person. Wikipedia strives to not be the rest of the internet, when it comes to discussing user generated claims about living people. Because this is a BLP, I do feel it necessary to flat out say, Rose85 claim and content about a living person is false under Wikipedia content policy, even though this is not a content forum.
In the sprit of [[WP:BLP]], I ask the committee or the clerks, to change the name of this case to eliminate the name of a living person. Wikipedia strives to not be the rest of the internet, when it comes to discussing user generated claims about living people. Because this is a BLP, I do feel it necessary to flat out say, 85Rose claim and content about a living person is false under Wikipedia content policy, even though this is not a content forum.


I won't say more at this point, because I think this should be a speedy decline, but ask me if you want more. Nonetheless, if you wish to instruct in BLP, while you decline, that may be useful. -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 13:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I won't say more at this point, because I think this should be a speedy decline, but ask me if you want more. Nonetheless, if you wish to instruct in BLP, while you decline, that may be useful. -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 13:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:30, 1 June 2021

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.

Shortcut

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Whether International Ice Hockey Federation should have a section on controversy detailing recent events regarding Belarus and tournament hosting   30 May 2021 0/6/1
Dispute involving university degree attained by Meghan Markle   1 June 2021 0/4/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024
Motion name Date posted
Block of Rp2006 18 June 2024

Whether International Ice Hockey Federation should have a section on controversy detailing recent events regarding Belarus and tournament hosting

Initiated by Jabbi (talk) at 22:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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

Statement by Jabbi

The IIHF has played an active role in legitimising Lukashenko's regime in Belarus by holding it's tournament there in 2014, which was controversial and by intending to hold it again this year, in 2021 which was also controversial and was eventually cancelled and instead held in Latvia. At the beginning of this year, the IIHF's seeming willingness, confirmed by public statements by IIHF president Fasel, along with photo opportunities of Fasel hugging Lukashenko caused controversy. Several tournament sponsors pulled out of supporting the tournament. Most recently, developments that in my view are clearly controversial, have led to this unfortunate arbitration request. In protest to the recent hijacking of a plane bound from Athens to Riga, Latvian officials replaced the Belarusian flag in the flag stand with that of a flag associated with the Belarusian opposition. Fasel then sent a formal letter to the Latvian foreign minister asking for the flag to be replaced again or IIHF flags to be removed. IIHF flags were removed and so there is no branding of an ongoing IIHF tournament event.

The reason this belongs on this article and not just on the articles of the tournaments themselves is because this is shown to be consistent policy of IIHF. Even in January of this year, Fasel is giving public statements saying he is pushing for Belarus to be the location for the tournament.

Back in January, I made much the same arguments and was met with resistance by the parties listed above. My first edit was reverted by Flibirigit saying it belonged in the article for that tournament, I reverted again countering that "the subject is not limited to the 2021's Men's Championships but is a relevant discussion of IIHF policies, other large international institutions have chapters on controversies".

In January I made several edits to improve the quality of the article, which were substantial and not contested by the parties above, among other things migrate the history section to a standalone article. I found it to be POVed and labelled it as such.

Please review the talk page and history of edits. I have prepared a --->summary <--- to explain the issue.

In short.

I have put in a section title Controversy, in which I try to maintain a good balance. It is well supported with sources and also a very relevant photo of the controversial event. A section under the heading is warranted, as per WP:COC, there is very well documented criticism of IIHF/Belarus cooperation over a period of many years.

As my first attempt to gain consensus failed, I relented. The recent events however just confirmed my conviction. The arguments against seem to be rather vague, the refer, if I understand correctly, to things not mentioned in the history of the organisation. There is an extensive section on controversies surrounding the International Olympic Committee.

(Moved from #Statement by Deepfriedokra) I don't know. Is that the hierarcy? I haven't had to do this before... If it's okay, I'd rather have this more formal process. I'll put it through WP:DRN if it's rejected here. I think it's rather serious you know. --Jabbi (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from #Statement by Nosebagbear) Okay. Done so here. Can we keep what I've posted here though for a while? --Jabbi (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ravenswing

Statement by 18abruce

There is nothing to arbitrate; there is one editor who disagrees with multiple others, who refuses to give any ground in a content dispute. By the editor's own admission (on his talk page) this is retaliation for being given a fair warning that they would be blocked if they continued with edit warring. It is disruptive behaviour on many levels and does not belong here.18abruce (talk) 11:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Flibirigit

This arbitration request should be declined since no other form of dispute resolution has been attempted. Flibirigit (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deepfriedokra

Statement by Nosebagbear

I don't know if it's buried in the discussions, but there doesn't seem much in the way of conduct violation accusations in the actual request - it's reading primarily as a content dispute to me. In which case we should have formal DRN utilised, and certainly ANI should be tried first if it is a conduct dispute. No way is this yet ready for ARB Nosebagbear (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

This would have been a reasonable dispute at DRN except that DRN has always had a rule that we do not accept a case that is (rightly or wrongly) pending in another forum. The filing editor has now also filed at DRN, and I have closed the DRN case due to the forum shopping. I agree with User:Nosebagbear that the best way to resolve this dispute will be RFC. The filing party should pause for a few days and let all of the virtual dust that they have raised subside, and then request assistance in composing a neutrally worded RFC. If they want me to assist with the RFC in a few days, they know where my talk page is (where my sig links to). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC) }}[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I see this as primarily a content dispute, and agree with Bradv that an RfC would seem to be the best next step, then moving up the food chain (DR, ANI) if necessary. I urge the Committee to reject the Request as premature. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jabbi: If the case request is rejected, I think it's better to go the WP:RfC route rather than going immediately to DRN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you continue to fail to get a consensus, there's not much you can do about it. I don't think DRN will overturn a definite consensus (Robert?), and ANI and Arbitration only deal with behavioral problems. It would be extraordinary for either to overturn a properly grounded consensus. Like it or not (and there are certainly some times when I don't) WP:CONSENSUS is our bottom line for content disputes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Softlavender

This is a matter for an WP:RFC, not for ArbCom. @Jabbi: Please file an WP:RFC. If you've never done that before, just follow the instructions. Ravenswing and Flibirigit have been around long enough to know how to do it.

This RFAR should be closed, since ArbCom is the wrong venue for this content question. Softlavender (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Whether International Ice Hockey Federation should have a section on controversy detailing recent events regarding Belarus and tournament hosting: Clerk notes

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

Whether International Ice Hockey Federation should have a section on controversy detailing recent events regarding Belarus and tournament hosting: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/6/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Waiting for further statements, but this appears to be a straightforward content dispute that may be best resolved by an RfC. If that doesn't work, there are several other forms of dispute resolution that should be tried before ArbCom gets involved. – bradv🍁 23:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Decline. – bradv🍁 13:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline Pretty much per what Brad said, this looks either to be a content issue or not yet "ripe" for arbitration. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline as not our kind of dispute. See suggestions by others about how to address this issue. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per bradv. I strongly suggest taking Robert McClenon up on his offer to assist with drafting an RFC. Regards SoWhy 07:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Primefac (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse Maxim(talk) 11:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline as content dispute. --BDD (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute involving university degree attained by Meghan Markle

Initiated by 85Rose (talk) at 11:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

 Clerk note: clerk placed notifications as filer failed to notify the listed parties

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by 85Rose

statement = False degree shown on Wikipedia page of Meghan Markle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85Rose (talk • contribs) 11:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DrKay

The filing party is inexperienced, and has misunderstood the purpose of arbitration. In my view, even calling this a content dispute is premature. All that's happened is that an edit request was made and declined. The content in dispute is not remotely controversial. Northwestern sources refer to the duchess's degree as a double major in theatre and international relations (e.g. [1][2]). Since theatre is taught by the School of Communications and international studies is an adjunct, it is also sometimes described as a communications major or graduating from the School of Communications (e.g. [3][4]). The article content is verifiable, and the filing party has failed to prove that it is false or even disputed in or by any reliable source. DrKay (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

In the sprit of WP:BLP, I ask the committee or the clerks, to change the name of this case to eliminate the name of a living person. Wikipedia strives to not be the rest of the internet, when it comes to discussing user generated claims about living people. Because this is a BLP, I do feel it necessary to flat out say, 85Rose claim and content about a living person is false under Wikipedia content policy, even though this is not a content forum.

I won't say more at this point, because I think this should be a speedy decline, but ask me if you want more. Nonetheless, if you wish to instruct in BLP, while you decline, that may be useful. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by curious Serial

[rant] The filing editor has eleven edits and no dispute resolution except for two talk page posts?! Arbs, you don't even have evidence of a dispute, let alone one reaching your august heights. This is precisely the sort of thing that should be clerk-removed before it has a chance to tie up the committee and the community. [/rant] ——Serial 12:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deepfriedokra

  • @85Rose: )(fix) Welcome to Wikipedia. This not a matter for ArbCom, which may be thought of as the Supreme Court of Wikipedia. If you have a concern about content about a living person, you should take the matter to the appropriate noticeboard, WP:BLPN, and withdraw this case. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Serial Number 54129: (stage whisper, mumbles) never a cop clerk around when you need one --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Dispute involving university degree attained by Meghan Markle: Clerk notes

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

Dispute involving university degree attained by Meghan Markle: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/4/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Decline as a straight-up content dispute that, as near as I can tell, hasn't even gone through WP:DRN yet. Primefac (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline as obviously premature. – bradv🍁 14:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline with other DR options available. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline --BDD (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=1026316194"