Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arcticocean (talk | contribs) at 20:42, 24 October 2008 (→‎Comments by AGK: Formatting.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:RfA Review (WP:RREV).
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke   16 September 2024 4/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Historical elections 13 Sep 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion (orig. case) 26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 8 September 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Wizardman's closure of the Ginger Jolie deletion debate

Initiated by The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) at 00:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

The moving party is aware of the request [1]

Wizardman has been notified of the request. [2]

Undoubtedly others will wish to become involved, but there is no practical way to determine who appropriate parties are other than self-selection. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ginger_Jolie

A fundamental issue, the extent to which an individual administrator may disregard the standard requirements for consensus based on individual judgment, necessarily recurs. The alternatives are to wait for a "wheel war" to develop, or to address the matter in a well-defined and conspicuous case, like this one, where the issues are clearly drawn and ripe for resolution.

Statement by The Enchantress Of Florence

During vigorous debate over a controversial issue, Wizardman closed the debate, explicitly citing a standard which does not enjoy consensus support in the community. Wizardman did not even wait until the prescribed 5-day period for comment had expired (the cutoff was approaching, but practice in controversial discussions has been to allow the community to continue in hopes of approaching if not reaching a consensus. Wizardman's close is not based on the conclusions of a neutral observer, but on his own evaluation of some of the substantive issues in the discussion. Since he acknowledges that there is nothing defamatory in the article, and that nothing in WP:BLP calls for this result, he is simply substituting his judgment for the community's. It is also important to note that the subject of the article, and her publicist, asked for deletion of the article not because the subject wishes privacy, but because the subject is seeking greater public exposure through success in the "glamour modeling" industry, and that the subject has asked Wikipedia to provide her with an artificial, nontrivial competitive advantage by helping to make information about her background harder to find -- information that is viewed as highly relevant in that field. There is no reasonable alternative to the Arbitration Committee taking up this case, either to direct that the debate be reopened and allowed to proceed for as long as it takes to determine a rough consensus, or to define the circumstances when an adminstrator may enforce an individual value judgment in lieu of a consensus policy or guideline. Deletion review, in light of the division, would be futile; either the full community process should be reopened, or the underlying issues should be resolved by this committee. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by How do you turn this on

Good grief. We have WP:DRV for a reason – use it if you disagree with the close. Urge rejection by Arbitrators. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shell Kinney

Not withstanding that there was no attempt to discuss the issue with Wizardman nor an attempt at community methods like WP:DRV before skipping straight here, this case is completely without merit and should be quickly declined. Wizardman's close was well within community norms and the additional care given to BLPs; I'm also impressed that he took the time to write such a detailed explanation of his close. Shell babelfish 01:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Minos P. Dautrieve

I strong urge the Committee to accept this case, based on my spouse's sound (if incompletely phrased) analysis. The underlying issues flow from the Committee's decision here [3]. Only the Committee can address them. The case is simple. The community was actively debating an issue of importance in principle, even though the individual subject was not particularly consequential. An administrator short-circuited the debate, found the community positions in equipoise, and invoked his individual evaluation of the issues as a basis to resolve the matter. It should be clear that the "do no harm" maxim cannot resolve the matter. As my spouse incompletely argued, the issue is not whether someone will be harmed Wikipedia's actions. Someone will. The question is whether "Ms Jolie" will be harmed, and her competitors benefited, by Wikipedia's publication of verified, pertinent information, or whether her business competitors will be harmed, and "Ms Jolie" benefited, by its deletion. Someone will be commercially advantaged by the decision here. Someone will be disadvantaged. This is a zero-sum situation. You, the Committee, established the rule that the closer used to resolve the debate. You therefore have the responsibility for deciding whether and how it applies in a zero-sum situation, and whether it justifies taking action not because harm will be avoided, but because the harm will be shifted from an identified to an unidentified party. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Brewcrewer

If the husband and wife tag-team would like to continue their implicit and explicit attacks on Ms. Jolie they should do it at sore-loser review. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Sticky Parkin

Wizardman is a gem for this close which is well in accordance with precedent and policy. Also I agree, if they must take it anywhere WP:DRV would be the venue, but it certainly seems spiteful against the real living person it particularly concerns, who is mentioned in only one reliable source- if you count Penthouse as a reliable source- to justify this treatment. Sticky Parkin 03:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wizardman

It appears many others have already said what I was going to say. If you hated my close that badly, the backlog on RFC is pretty low, as is DRV. A lot of the points the submitter makes I actually refute in my AfD closure. If Arbcom wants to pass a motion of clarification regarding BLP matters then they may, otherwise there's nothing salvageable here. Wizardman 04:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AGK

It was commented to me that the core problem in this matter was that Arbitration Committee's persistent discouragement of wheel warring had created a "climate of fear" amongst administrators, who under that climate had become inherently reluctant to undo an action of their colleague's even when that action is clearly poorly-thought or misplaced. (For reference, recent rulings on wheel warring can be seen: Sarah Palin protection wheel war; Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war; Freestylefrappe.)

I'm inclined to disagree that the Committee's stance on wheel warring is misplaced or incorrect. Whilst it may be true to a small extent that the robust stance it has held on wheel warring has resulted in administrators being especially cautious on undoing others' sysop actions, I believe this to be a Good Thing™.

A misplaced deletion standing for a few days whilst a discussion is held to affirm that the action was poor is, whilst not ideal, acceptable in my mind, when one considers that the alternative is a somewhat chaotic situation in our encyclopedia where the most experienced editors of the project (namely, our sysops) are actively undoing each other liberally and without communication.

No, the Committee's past rulings and ongoing stance on wheel warring is the correct one. It may indeed result in sysops being hesitant at undoing one another freely; but the benefits to the project reaped from that culture are vast. In future incidents like this, the matter should be handled through the procedures we have in place to facilitate the collation of communal consensus on the matter: by presenting the administrator's action at deletion review. (To use this incident as a case study: here we would, after discussing the matter with him, take Wizardman's action to DRV for consideration, discussion, and a final decision.)

And, of course... The Arbitration Committee is not a substitute for DRV. That should go without saying, however.

AGK 19:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SirFozzie

I would echo AGK's thoughts above, and invite the parties to look at the DRV that I opened on Joe the Plumber... which is the way to handle contentious AfD closes (DRV, not ArbCom, etcetera). SirFozzie (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Trusilver

While I was not one-hundred percent in agreement with the rationale behind the close, I certainly understand Wizardman's decision, as well as the reasoning behind making it. Regardless, there is a structured dispute resolution process that has not been followed in this case, the first step in which would be taking this matter to DRV for further review. I would urge the Committee to reject this request. Trusilver 22:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MadScot

I believe that the implications of the decision for policy are great, and that it should be reviewed fully - and I expect it will end up here at some point. I also agree however that there is a process, and right now I consider we're still at "discussion with the closing admin" stage, not even DRV. I believe DRV will occur, and I expect whatever that decision is to come here, because it's such a thorny issue. Thus I request/suggest that this request for arbitration be neither accepted nor rejected, but rather stayed, pending the full process. Which will also, incidentally, allow more opportunity for discussion and even, perhaps, a closer approach to consensus. MadScot (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Minos P. Dautrieve

What seems to be escaping those who argue for the deletion review process is that the governing policy forbids review in a case like this one. The deletion review page/policy statement is quite clear: "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, or if the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions. Deletion Review also is to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article. . . This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented." None of these criteria apply. By policy, as implemented by the Arbitration Committee, the requirements of the deletion process were generally complied with (except that the debate was closed early by a matter of a few hours). That a self-selected administrator is enabled, by policy and under a mandate from this committee, to enforce his individual value judgment, in lieu of any consensus or further attempt to form a consensus, raises issues that this committee needs to address. This matter draws the central issues with reasonable clarity, and provides an appropriate opportunity for the committee to address the consequences, foreseen or unforeseen, of its earlier determinations. I hope the committee will also address the plain violations of civility and plain failures to assume good faith, in the statements of some users above regarding this request. Finally, assuming that the committee takes up this request, I strongly urge it to address in the necessary balance the converse of the current issue. If the inclusion/deletion of an entry in Wikipedia has the potential to substantially affect the life/career of its subject, as this debate is premised on, then the potential for adverse impact should also be taken into account as a consequence of deletion. A staple of AFD discussions is the continued deprecation of the verifiable achievements/professional work of lower-profile subjects, particularly academics, authors, and performers. I note the existence of this unfortunate deletion discussion [4], where the 25-year career of a recognizable working actor is rudely and crudely disrespected. Discussions like that are a daily occurrence here, and the victims of those discussions are far more deserving of community sympathy and solicitude. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Scott MacDonald

Seems to me to be in the range of the closing admin's decision. It can be reviewed at DRV, and providing everyone behaves there, there's little need for arbitration now or later.

I wrote an essay Wikipedia:Borderline biographies some months ago, urging admins to consider doing exactly what's been done here.It may be of interest. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by harej

Definitely premature. An article-for-deletion discussion is not dispute resolution. Let's try this through another medium before getting the top crew involved. I'll volunteer (if there's actually a dispute). --harej 01:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/1)

  • Decline. Wikipedia:Deletion review is the appropriate forum for this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Withdrawing vote for now, and will provide a more detailed response in the next day or two. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, for several reasons. First, the forum for challenging the closure of a deletion debate is Deletion Review, but no request has yet been made. Second, a close of 'no consensus, default to delete' may be a novel concept but it is justifiable in terms of policy in an area where policies are in conflict. Third, even if it wasn't, it would be a justifiable invocation of WP:IAR to avoid harm to a living person. Fourth, Wizardman explained his rationale in detail and has been open for discussion. Fifth, arbitration is the last stage of dispute resolution, and not the first. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject per every point Sam stated. In the past, I have indicated that a close of "no consensus" no longer always means keep if the situation involves a living person. Because I've not reviewed the facts (and I don't intend to at this time as I think it remains a Community matter), I'm not making a judgment in this particular case about the correctness of the close. But I want to emphasis that because the standard for articles about living people are higher and more complex than for other articles, it is within administrator discretion to delete an article about a living person, now, with the understanding that the situation can be reviewed later, if needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications and other requests

Shortcuts

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. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke   16 September 2024 4/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Historical elections 13 Sep 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion (orig. case) 26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 8 September 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.


Current requests

Request for appeal of block to User:ResearchEditor

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by ResearchEditor

I believe that I have shown at here that the blocking admin Moreschi here had a conflict of interest when blocking me. He had a vested interest in blocking my POV from the SRA page. As per here" Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely toexist....administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools." Also, I have been unable to defend myself in front of the wikpedia community at here which I should have been able to do before such a lengthy block occured.

Further statement by ResearchEditor

In response to the statement by WLU. WLU is hardly an impartial party in this matter. His extremist point of view on the SRA topic is clearly shown here which is a quote from the SRA talk page. This point of view ignores a large portion of the research and promotes the views of a few extremists which is diametrically opposed to mine. The entire point of this and all prior actions was to block a more balanced editing POV on the page, toward the extremist one that now presently exists.

In response to Hersfold, there is no conclusive evidence that I have used alternate accounts. The only "evidence" was geographic proximity, which in a large town could be anyone.

In response to Moreschi, his conflict of interest was obvious and is shown here where numerous quotes of his show that his POV is diametrically opposed to mine. He should have excused himself from any administrative action in this matter, due to his clear conflict of interest.

In conclusion, it is obvious that this and all preceding administrative actions against myself have been about blocking a more balanced POV of being placed on the SRA page, instead of the extremist position backed by only a few researchers that presently exists there. — ResearchEditor 13:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Posted by — Coren (talk)'[reply]

In reply to WLU's 10/21/08 statement, my follow up statement is very relevant. All administrative actions taken against myself and my editing were to ensure the control of the content on the SRA page to promote WLU's one-sided extremist point of view promoting panic theory, which in no way represents a balanced view of the literature in the SRA field. Editor WLU has fully participated in every aspect of debate to make sure that only his point of view is on the page. Moreschi's conflict of interest is very obvious, as shown here, which clearly shows his diametrically opposed POV to mine, as well as his various actions as an editor and administrator to get me banned from editing the page. Moreschi should never have banned me, since he has a clear conflict of interest. This is clearly a POV dispute and it has been all along. Content control of the SRA page has been the clear motivation of the Moreschi and WLU and this is clear from all of their statements at the diff above and here.

In reply to Hersfold's 10/21/08 statement, it appears that there is no conclusive evidence that I should be blocked, other than possibly some mysterious checkuser criteria he mentions. And at here the only item mentioned is an IP check. The only "evidence" presented was "geographic similarities." In essence, anyone could have made these edits.

I am requesting that due to 1) A clear conflict of interest of the original blocking admin Moreschi, 2) Inconclusive evidence of any violation of wiki policy and 3) the obvious motivation of the WLU and Moreschi to control the content of the SRA page and block those that disagree with their POVs, that this ban be rescinded immediately.

posted by Rlevse at RE's request — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WLU

Note that Moreschi blocked ResearchEditor for evading a page ban based on this RFCU. ResearchEditor has been banned from editing the satanic ritual abuse and related pages (with the ban was sanctioned here) and though Moreschi started the discussion, many, many other editors weighed in and the consensus was ResearchEditor was a tendentious editor pushing a fringe point of view that was not supported by the mainstream scholarly opinion. The ban is a separate issue from the block, and Moreschi seems completely within his rights to institute a block for evading a community ban through sockpuppeting, confirmed through a RfCU. This block has nothing to do with blocking a POV, and is actually about ResearchEditor evading a community ban. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 00:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "follow-up" statement is completely, completely irrelevant. This is not a content dispute, it's about sockpuppeting to evade a community ban. The POV of Moreschi and myself are irrelevant - Moreschi was basing his block on an independent decision regarding the results of a RFCU. My post was to demonstrate the context and history of the block. Neither have anything to do with our POV or position on satanic ritual abuse. A RCU is always a judgement call; in this case the judgement was that based on geographic similarity of IP addresses and contribution history it was likely ResearchEditor was using a variety of accounts to avoid his/her ban. The only decision I see the arbcom possibly having to make would be regards the correctness of Tiptoety's assessment of the RCU results. This is not a POV dispute. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 15:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Hersfold

I am adding myself to this request as an administrator who twice declined ResearchEditor's requests for unblocking. When I reviewed the checkuser case, the terms of the topic ban, and the contributions of all accounts involved, it seemed very clear that this user was repeatedly using alternate accounts in an attempt to circumvent the ban, placed for the reasons WLU has outlines above. ResearchEditor's main argument against the block appears to be the perceived conflict of interest held by blocking administrator Moreschi at the time of the block. However, since three administrators have looked into the situation on ResearchEditor's talk page, and two of those admins (one myself) have declined to unblock him, this would appear to fall under the de facto definition of a community ban, that is, "no administrator is willing to unblock." As I said on ResearchEditor's talk page, if a block is endorsed by another administrator, then he is in effect blocked by all those endorsing the block. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to ResearchEditor: You may not be aware, however Checkuser looks at more information than simply your IP address. Even if your geographic location was similar, the investigation probably would not have been marked as "likely" if several other technical indicators had not also pointed out a relation between you and the other accounts. That's all I can tell you, as I am not a checkuser myself and only know for certain what information the basic tool provides; I believe the checkuser tool here has some features added to increase the usefulness of investigations, and in any event publicly posting what we look at would be a Bad ThingTM in case other sockpuppeteers got wind of it. Furthermore, there is the issue of the similar contribution history, which checkusers and regular admins alike take into consideration as well. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moreschi

ResearchEditor is clearly a tendentious editor. His accusations that I had any sort of conflict of interest here are completely spurious. Tedious months of trying to restrain his grosser excesses, previously as Abuse truth/Abuse t, do not count as having been engaged in a content dispute with this fringe POV-pusher, particularly since I have almost never actually edited the SRA page itself. Please dismiss ASAP so the 1-year block can be reinstated. Moreschi (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=247454557"