(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kirill Lokshin (talk | contribs) at 01:45, 1 January 2007 (→‎Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/0/0): Reject). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

A request for Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting Arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom).

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[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: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland Motion (orig. case) 21 June 2024
Amendment request: Suspension of Beeblebrox Motion none 10 July 2024
Clarification request: Desysoppings none none 12 July 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four net accept votes are cast; that is, four more accept than reject votes. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details. "Recuse" means that an Arbitrator has excused themselves from a case because of a possible, or perceived, conflict of interest. Cases which have not met the acceptance criteria after 10 days will be removed from this page.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or Clerk may do so.

See also




Current requests

Armenian Genocide

Initiated by Cat out at 21:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Articles talk page msg (Every involved party can see it there)
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
There has been numerous attempts for mediation (citing them individually is difficult), rfc and other dispute resolution mechanisms. There is a stunning 14 archive pages.

Statement by User:Cool Cat

As per current version

The article in question had been problematic since its start. Articles quality is not increasing with the passing time and in fact it has been deteriorating. Article is suffering heavily from a lack of neutrality.

Throughout it's life span article has been subject to non-stop revert wars and other nonsense. On the articles talk page incivility and personal attacks had been lurking non-stop. Even the counter thesis is treated as a "Denial of the Armenian Genocide". There is also a great deal of original research in the article.

I'd like arbitration committee to review the article and its history for problematic material/behavior. I do not consider myself completely objective on the matter.

--Cat out 21:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amending comment. I want ArbCom to review the behavior of several people involved with the article such as User:THOTH as pointed out below. I further want the arbitration committee to review the article in the light of WP:NPOV and other policies. I also feel that the "Minority opinion" approach as mentioned right below is the root of the problem (See Armenian_Genocide#Denial for what I mean). --Cat out 18:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Angusmclellan

I apologise for beginning with a statement of the obvious: this is a content dispute. Per m:Foundation issues, point 3 - with agreed exceptions such as WP:BLP and WP:NPOV - "the wiki process [is] the final authority on content". Cool Cat (talk • contribs) apparently wishes to have a minority opinion given undue weight, something which WP:NPOV cautions against. There is no dispute for the arbitration committee to consider; the wiki process is working as well as can be expected in a controversial field. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:OttomanReference

This is not a balanced article, and "constantly kept that way". The "content" of the Article does not reflect the "title" of the article.

introduction:178 words
status:449 words
before:126 words
Genocide (the real content):1516 words
corroboration:1881 words
trials:753 words
casulties:125 words
jewish:581 words
Turkey:281 words
recognition:150 words
pamuk:165 words
denial:337 words
position of internationa:955 words
Memorial:270 words
Art:550 words

The "accusations" are presented as "crimes", that is the basic reason behind the fact that "corroboration" section is bigger than any other section. Senator "Ahmed Riza" is quoted regarding how to handle the "Armenian assets", which he was not against the Tehcir Law but a specific part (it was a 4 part law). The article presented him (with a reference) and added words like there is a genocide and he is against it. Ottoman references are constantly deleted on the pretext that they are biased. But "Ahmed Riza" citation is not biased? The handling of the "Armenian assets" was fixed with a subsequent law by the parliament. Ottoman parliament fixed that problem, but I have reservation if we can fix this misrepresentation. There is no section that explains when a "deportation" become a "crime"; or "a state organized crime (Genocide)". And anything regarding on "becoming a crime" was moved under the title "Denial" or build on unsupported claims. Wiki process is not working. --OttomanReference 01:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Fadix

Cool_Cat request will probably not pass, given that it does not enter in the arbitrations jurisdiction. I had started out a draft in the past preparing a request myself. [1] And I wish the arbitration committee to take a look at. I had also prepared pages of evidences of abuses, vandalism of the Armenian Genocide article. OttomanReference being one of those implicated who has used at least three socks which I have documented. [2] He used those socks to reinitiate reverted changes and support each others.

Even though Cool_Cat request at first doesn’t seem to fit the mandate of the committee, I believe that indeed there is sufficient material for a case, on the basis that this article is abused repeatedly, constantly by vandals, POV pushers, the articles talk page is used as a discussion forum. While the material presented in my draft [3] is outdated, this article is abused constantly. I wish there is no arbitration, because I have not the time nor the energy for it, but the decision is to the committee to take. Fad (ix) 05:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Francis Tyers ·

This is one article that goes around-and-around-and-around. It isn't really the behaviour of the individual participants which is the problem (although User:THOTH comes to mind as being entirely unhelpful). The chief problem is that it is impossible to come to an agreement on whether the Armenian Genocide did happen (this includes a dispute of the article's title). There are certain individuals who refuse to accept that, and the arguments repeat themselves like the movement of the wheels on the proverbial bus. Preferably the ArbCom would come out and say "The current title is acceptable/not-acceptable" or "The Armenian Genocide did/did not happen". Just a firm decision either way. Of course this is probably never going to happen so I'm not sure what good this Arbitration will be. Until the both sides of the dispute can agree (or have it put upon them) that the events did/did not happen there will never be any rest. Of course this is not unique in Wikipedia. - Francis Tyers · 17:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Please make a list of involved parties using {{Userlinks|Name}} and provide diffs to their talk pages showing they have been informed (parties who have already commented need not be formally informed again). Thatcher131 15:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/0)

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.



RPJ case and the Spartacus site

A finding of fact in the RPJ case mentions the site spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk (founder John Simkin), characterised as propagandistic in relation to uncritical inclusions as factual of material on the Kennedy assassination. The Spartacus site contains unrelated historical material on many subjects. Having heard from John Simkin, and having myself linked to Spartacus pages on numerous occasions, I would like to clarify that (as far as I'm concerned) the FoF in the case is not intended as a blanket condemnation. Editors should exercise good judgement as to tone and factual reliability of these pages, case by case. Charles Matthews 20:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and have posted on this matter at Wikipedia:Village pump (news). I have used the site in the past, and I certainly don't think it should be banned from Wikipedia, and the ArbCom finding should not be interpreted as such. It is still a site that needs to be treated with caution and not depended on too heavily, especially in controversial articles. - SimonP 02:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I would not use the site for any purpose; the question of whether a site is a reliable source depends on the nature of the subject and how it is treated by the site. In the RPJ case, which focused on aggressive advancement of conspiracy theories of the JFK assassination, most of the problem with use of the site as a source was caused by use of selected pages from the site to advance contentious points. Fred Bauder 13:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRC logs

Hello. An excerpt of an IRC log were placed on and were subsequently removed from the project's talk page. I seek clarification from the Committee as to the extent to which we are we permitted to or prohibited from discussing the content contained in this excerpt (without direct quotations, of course). Since I have already commented on these, I would like to know whether I am in breach of the rules by doing so, so that, if applicable, I could rectify this and remove my comment accordingly. The pertinent comments are here. El_C 00:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion needs to go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard in order to attempt to resolve the general questions involved regarding nasty behavior on IRC channels. The arbitrators did find Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Off-wiki_personal_attacks in the course of our discussions. It would probably be best not to rely on those particular logs or discuss their details, but the questions they raise, and the other questions raised regarding hostile or dismissive comments on IRC need to be discussed. I doubt anyone would fault you for your comments so far. Fred Bauder 15:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Fred. I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my question. While I do have thoughts regarding the particulars of the aforementioned excerpt, I will keep these confined to my mind, or at least, offwiki. For now. El_C 17:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano

Since his arbitration case, Giano has shown continued incivility. This is most recently discussed on WP:ANI#Block_of_Giano_II and WP:ANI#Giano.27s_rampant_incivility. Most recently, uncivil comments like [4] and [5] led to a block on Giano [6] which was endorsed by Jimbo, when he chose to unblock on the condition that "I hope that at least for the next 72 hours, you will agree to be calm and non-attacking". Giano's responses (even to Jimbo's personal note) broke this trust "IRC stooge sent by a lying admin on IRC", "IRC stooge", "Tell them to shove their comments up their borealis, my little nothern star", and he was subsequently reblocked for "I never talk behind people's backs - a concept I don't expect you to understand", however, Giano has been unblocked yet again, and quickly resumes with incivlity like "little-admin-with-the-funny-unpronouncable-name". I propose a standard civility parole to both cool the disruptive behavior, and give administrators a clear way to enforce it in the future without constant blocking and unblocking.

The following remedy shall be amended to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano if passed:

Giano placed on civility parole

Giano (Giano (talk · contribs), Giano II (talk · contribs) or subsequent accounts) is placed on standard civility parole for one year. He may be blocked for 24 hours, or up to a week for repeated offenses, for any edit which an uninvolved administrator deems to be a personal attack, incivility, or an assumption of bad faith. Blocks shall be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano#Log of blocks and bans and noted on Giano's talk page.

As there were 9 active arbitrators at the time this motion was proposed, the majority is 5. Thatcher131 03:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Support:
  1. First choice. Dmcdevit·t 00:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 00:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Third choice. James F. (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 01:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Too one-sided, too punitive, unhelpful. Jayjg (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Giano asked to leave the project for two weeks

alternative to the remedy above

The Committee notes that Giano has made extensive contributions to the encyclopedia. Building the encyclopedia is Wikipedia's core mission. However, Wikipedia's behavioral standards exist to allow all Wikipedians to work together to build the encyclopedia efficiently.

Despite repeated warnings, Giano has continued to violate Wikipedia's behavioral standards. The Committee is concerned that Giano and other observers may conclude that there is no effective enforcement of these standards.

The Committee reluctantly requires Giano to leave the project for a period of two weeks, after which he is encouraged to return. We hope to see more of the excellent writing which is the greatest strength Giano brings to the project. In recognizance of Giano's standing within the community, he is expected to observe this remedy voluntarily; his account shall not be blocked to enfore this remedy unless it becomes clear that he is in deliberate violation of this it.

Support:
  1. I rather like this. First choice. I do not think that this is an exception beyond the pale, given Giano's contributions and his difficult history. James F. (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I have decided that exceptions for "good contributors" are inappropriate, some leeway, yes, but not to the proposed degree. Fred Bauder 15:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC) He was already excused, if not explicitly warned in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano. Fred Bauder 15:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I shall refrain from voting on this measure for the time being since I did not vote in the original case. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modification of above remedies

Alternative to the above two remedies; combines elements of both

The committee recognizes Giano's contributions to the encylopedia and also recognizes that he may have been "baited" to respond by other users; however, because of his continuing incivility and inappropriate responses, Giano ((Giano (talk · contribs), Giano II (talk · contribs) or subsequent accounts) is banned for one week. After the conclusion of the ban, he is placed on civility parole for one year; he may be blocked for 24 hours, or up to a week for repeated offenses, for any edit which three uninvolved administrators deem to be a personal attack or incivility. The block must be proposed and then affirmed by the three adminstrators at the administrators' noticeboard, and all blocks must be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano#Log of blocks and bans and noted on Giano's talk page.

Support:
  1. Second choice Fred Bauder 21:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. James F. (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. Dmcdevit·t 02:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=97646167"