Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions
AndrewPeterT (talk | contribs) →Proposed parties: provide confirmation that proposed parties have been informed of request |
|||
| Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
=== Persistent [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] behavior in [[WP:NCROY]] discussions: Clerk notes === |
=== Persistent [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] behavior in [[WP:NCROY]] discussions: Clerk notes === |
||
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' |
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' |
||
*{{re|AndrewPeterT}} please revert your notifications on project pages and the village pump for this case. The only people who should be notified are the editors you've listed as parties. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 03:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* |
|||
=== Persistent [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] behavior in [[WP:NCROY]] discussions: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0> === |
=== Persistent [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] behavior in [[WP:NCROY]] discussions: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0> === |
||
Revision as of 03:08, 10 May 2024
Requests for arbitration
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions | 10 May 2024 | 0/0/0 |
| Case name | Closed |
|---|---|
| Conflict of interest management | 13 Apr 2024 |
| Mzajac | 7 May 2024 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing | none | (orig. case) | 30 April 2024 |
| Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 | none | (orig. case) | 13 May 2024 |
| Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation | none | (orig. case) | 13 May 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
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. 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. This page is for statements, not discussion.
|
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions
Initiated by AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) at 02:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Proposed parties
- AndrewPeterT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- TimothyBlue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Huwmanbeing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Compassionate727 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Born2cycle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Deb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Walrasiad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- diff of notification TimothyBlue
- diff of notification Huwmanbeing
- diff of notification Compassionate727
- diff of notification Born2cycle
- diff of notification Deb
- diff of notification Walrasiad
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
NOTE: Additional requested moves have taken place where debates on WP:NCROY occurred. The below list encapsulates, in chronological order, the discussions the original poster (OP) thinks are relevant for this case request.
- RM on Charles III closed July 31, 2023
- RM on Elizabeth II closed August 4, 2023
- RM on George I closed August 14, 2023
- ANI discussion ending on July 30, 2023 on 3 above discussions
- RM on Elizabeth II closed August 14, 2023
- RM on Felipe VI closed August 14, 2023
- RfC on Wikipedia talk:NCROY closed November 2, 2023 (This revision has especially been a source of the concerns behind this request.)
- RfC on Wikipedia talk:ROYALTY withdrawn on November 25, 2023 (In the interest of full disclosure, the OP confesses that initiating this discussion was an unwise choice on his end.)
- RM on Edward I of England closed on December 4, 2023 (The OP confesses to making an inappropriate closure of this discussion beforehand).
- RM on Ferdinand VI of Spain closed on January 10, 2024
- RM on Frederik IX of Denmark opened on January 15, 2024 (and has been open for nearly four months)
- RM on Ludovico III Gonzaga, Marquis of Mantua closed on January 20, 2024
- RM on Pharnavaz I of Iberia opened on February 6, 2024 (and has been open for nearly three months)
- RM on Nicholas II closed on February 19, 2024
- Discussion on Wikipedia talk:ROYALTY ending on February 21, 2024
- Inappropriate close of RM on Frederick William IV of Prussia undone on February 28, 2024 (user talk page discussion ending on same day)
- AN discussion on WP:NCROY-related moves ending on April 2, 2024
- RM on Isabella II closed on April 22, 2024
- RM on Edward V closed on April 23, 2024
- RM on Charles XI of Sweden closed on April 26, 2024 (where the closer anticipated a move review occurring even without user talk page discussion)
- RM on David III of Tao closed on April 30, 2024
- Discussion on Wikipedia talk:NCROY ending on May 8, 2024
Statement by AndrewPeterT
Dear ArbCom,
I apologize in advance if my tone is improper. This is my first request.
At the core of this case request are behavioral concerns regarding how disagreements with WP:NCROY have been expressed. I come to ArbCom to request binding guidance on how to cease the constant user drama over how WP:NCROY should be applied. I also come to ArbCom to request binding guidance for all users on how to react when a personal interpretation of any guideline is rejected by community consensus.
I do not know if the linked discussions count as acceptable “lesser” methods of dispute resolution. However, over many months, at a plethora of venues, from talk pages to RMs and RfCs, bludgeoning, forum shopping, and even breaches of 5P4, among other concerns, have taken over conversations on WP:NCROY and left many users (myself included) exhausted.
I fail to see how any further discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI can address such frequent and widespread behavior. Moreover, given the persistence in how some users have acted when their opinions are rejected, I likewise do not believe the non-binding guidance of WP:DRN will address these frustrations, which go beyond content disagreements.
Now, I will be honest - I am guilty myself of having let my emotions take over and acted disruptively when arguing for my interpretation of WP:NCROY. Additionally, I have owned up to and apologized for these lapses in judgement: A, B, and C. Furthermore, I have even started RMs to implement the consensus of WP:NCROY despite my personal disagreements: D.
What does it say about the community when RMs go a few months without a formal closure, only to be taken straight to a WP:MR discussion with comments inappropriate for such a venue (as noted in E)? Above all, what does it say about the community when closers of RMs are hesitant to even participate in closing WP:NCROY-related discussions (for fear of starting heated and possibly WP:UNCIVIL discussions): F and G?
Finally, I apologize if I have invited users who do not wish to participate in this case request. The basis of my proposed parties are (as I see) the key participants of two recent MR discussions for Edward IV and David III of Tao. But these are far from all the users involved. And the fact that I am saying this is a major reason that I am filing this case request.
Thank you very much for your consideration. Other users are welcome to elaborate on what I have discussed. I request an extension of my word count to answer inquiries from other users.
Sincerely,
AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement by TimothyBlue
Statement by Huwmanbeing
Statement by Compassionate727
Statement by Born2cycle
Statement by Deb
Statement by Walrasiad
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.
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- @AndrewPeterT: please revert your notifications on project pages and the village pump for this case. The only people who should be notified are the editors you've listed as parties. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)