Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:08, 17 February 2007

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

• WP:RFAR
• WP:A/R
• WP:ARB/R
• WP:ARBREQ

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages. 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:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Current requests

Anglicisation of French administrative terms

Initiated by NYArtsnWords at 22:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Principal parties

• Grcampbell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ThePromenader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• EHM02667 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aquarelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NYArtsnWords (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Peripherally involved parties

• Baristarim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• John Kenney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Stevage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Captain scarlet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• OwenBlacker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Olivier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Evv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Grcampbell, ThePromenader, EHM02667, Aquarelle, Olivier, Baristarim, OwenBlacker, Captain_scarlet, Stevage, John_Kenney Evv

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia_talk:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#French_terms
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_France/Archive_01
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_France

Statement by NYArtsnWords (talk · contribs)

This is a dispute about whether the English or French terms department/département and region/région and other administrative terms should be used (a) in article titles, and/or (b) in article leads and/or (c) in the text of articles dealing with France and its administrative divisions.

Those in favor of the English terms cite the guidelines of WP:UE, WP:BETTER, WP:NCGN and WP:NAME and assert that the use of the English terms is appropriate, frequent, common (e.g., it is used in the Encyclopedia Britannica) and not subject to unnecessary confusion.

Those in favor of keeping the French terms in some or all of the above cases assert that the French terms define specific French administrative divisions, that their use on the English wikipedia has been longstanding, and that the use of English terms will create confusion for readers unacquainted with their specific French usage (e.g., in the case of the words "region" or "department", common English usage does not imply an administrative division).

The topic has been the subject of debate on the WikiProject France since 18 January 2007, and this debate has included a Request for Comment (22 January 2007). The dispute has been complicated by the fact that certain parties have been "anglicising" pages since the middle of December 2006 (see WikiProject France talk page), either through page moves (for changes to article titles) or through content edits, long before the anglicisation question was first discussed. Some parties in the dispute would like to see an immediate cessation of all anglicisation and a "rollback" of some or all of the previous anglicisation until the question is decided. The debate is becoming acrimonious (accusations of WP:NPA, WP:POV, WP:OR, etc.), and it is unlikely that mediation will lead to a consensus.

Arbitration is sought to clarify in which cases use of the French administrative terms may be used on the English-language wikipedia and whether a rollback of previous anglicisation should occur. It is feared that a lack of arbitration may result in an edit war.

Statement by ThePromenader (talk · contribs)

My stance is against the hasty blanket-yet-superficial modification of thousands of articles by but two contributors preferring one method over another established through years of contributions. The same had made no effort at all to discuss these changes with anyone at all, and the result of these widespread changes was in many cases both sloppiness and ambiguity.

Certain words such as "region" and "departement" share exactly the same spelling, save an accent, as their English counterparts, but in each language, their foremost meaning is not at all the same. It is the very similarity between these words that lends the possibilty of using a word that, perfectly recognisable in its original format, makes it evident that its meaning is other than what the English reader would normally understand. Otherwise it is neccessary to add extra context or explanation to the word. Both are widely-used techniques in many publications; Wiki, since three years now, has made liberal use of both. There is no need to totally erradicate one or the other, and, most of all, certainly not in the widepread, hasty and no-consensus manner that is has until it was called to the attention of other contributors.

This is not a minor affair, as it affects all French-topic articles. If anything is to be judged here though, it should be the actions of each participant - nameley the widespread no-consensus change - and what should be done in light of that. Discussion about content can move forward in a more constructive way, in another place than here, from there. But this must be resolved first.

Observation by all-but-uninvolved User:Stevage

This is an incredibly trivial issue. It really doesn't matter: department, département, tomayto, tomato. I would welcome a decision by the arbitration committee, by any means (flip a coin if you like), that everyone will stick to. Or even let's just create templates like {frdept} which can expand to either department or département depending on which month it is or something. Stevage 02:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Of course choice of method and vocabulary is a trivial issue, especially when both choices are perfectly understandable by all. What is not trivial is someone taking a phrase written using one method and context and half-assedly halfway changing it to another - a change to word with no thought to method or reader comprehension - is a complete other: It's making a mess.

I think the arbitration is to finalise a consensus on cleaning things up; not to discuss the merits of one method over another. Flip a coin, sure, but let's not be flippant. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 13:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I would like to cite WP:UE#Disputed_issues and Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(standard_letters_with_diacritics)#Guideline_in_a_nutshell:

"during and after the poll mentioned above, e.g. Inishmore, not Inis Mór; Tomás Cardinal Ó Fiaich, not Tomas Cardinal O'Fiaich"

Which should be used instead of the flip a coin method. I will search for notable sources to see if one of the other is used in the case of official naming of administrative terms and regions; régions and départements. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

The arbitration committee generally does not hear content disputes and is not likely to decide the question you have posed. Is there cause for arbitration based on editor behavior (such as disruptive editing, edit warring or personal attacks) related to the debate on the question at issue? Thatcher131 23:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment from an uninvolved user (as it happens, me) moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration#Moved from Anglicisation of French administrative terms. Newyorkbrad 22:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0)

• Decline, content dispute. Kirill Lokshin 02:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. Not our domain. --jpgordon 04:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. Premature, I'm sure a reasonable solution can be worked out. Just make sure there is no more move warring. - SimonP 14:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Reject per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Decline, per above. Paul August ☎ 18:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Requests for clarification

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

Question to Arbcom

see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults

I have had a Arbcom case against me in the past. I am now, I believe being harrassed based on it. Any dispute with a user, meaning disagreement involves a user threatening an Arbcom hearing against me. There is a page for enforcement that lets people complain about those who have had hearings, where do those who feel they are being harrassed because of them, have to go to be heard? Is there an equal place where Arbcom will here their points? --NuclearZer0 21:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

These kinds of disputes should be handled through the normal mediation process first. If you have specific examples of harassment, please take them to WP:MEDCOM or WP:MEDCAB for resolution. The past ruling against you by the Arbitration Committee does not give them original jurisdiction over all disputes or complaints raised by you in the future. --Ryan Delaney 23:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Lord knows NuclearUmpf/Zer0faults can be a pain in the ass, and an edit warrior. But I can list off the top of my head three instances where the first thing an editor did when he saw an edit by Nuclear that he didn't like was to either threaten him with arbitration, or post a complaint to Arbitration enforcement. I'm not aware that being on probation relieves other editors of the expectation that they will at least make a good faith attempt to discuss a disputed edit before applying for sanctions. When an editor reverts Nuclear's edits with the edit summary "Suggest that he's violating the Arbcom ruling for the 4th or 5th time," and it's the first time Nuclear has been reverted at that page, and no prior (or subsequent) discussion was attempted, its hard not to see that as creating a corrosive environment for him. Since the arbitration committee places enforcement of its decrees in the hands of the admins at large, I do not expect they will take any concrete action here. But I don't know what to do either. Thatcher131 04:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No indeed. Nuclear could help by not going nuclear so quickly, I think. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification on remedy of the Requests for arbitration/Kosovo

On 21 October 2006 the Kosovo arbcom found that I had been given 96 hours probation for edit warring on the Srebrenica massacre article and based on this (presumably) gave me one years probation and revert parole. I have a couple of questions regarding this remedy.

• why did the Kosovo arbcom consider my misconduct on the Srebrenica massacre article? Nowehere is the Srebrenica massacre article names as a 'related article'. Nowhere is the reasoning for linking the two articles given.
• it seems a rather harsh remedy to give me one years probation and revert parole for a 'crime' which I had already served time for (so to say).
• is it possible to appeal the Kosovo arbcom's decision?

Sincere regards Osli73 10:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this happened. I don't see any edits at all that you made to Kosovo. Fred Bauder 18:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please also refer to my note on Fred's talk page as well as the conversation on my talk page. El_C 02:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fred, what is the process I need to go through to appeal the decision of the arbcom? Regards Osli73 09:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Oh, I see it has already started.Osli73 09:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that Dmcdevit is arguing not to revoke the decisions. My comments on his reasons for not doing so are:

1. dmcdevit doesn't answer why I should be 'punished' a second time for a 'crime' which I had already been punished for. If so, could I be 'punished' for the original edit war yet another time?
2. I don't it mentioned anywhere in the Kosovo arbcom case that edits on the Srebrenica massacre article should be considered. It might be worthy of interest that Asterion already asked Dmcdevit this question (here) to which Dmcdevit answered that "It's reasonably related enough for me". What is the 'jurisdiction' of the Kosovo arbcom? Why were not edits on other articles considered?
3. It seems somewhat odd that a, in my opinion, wrongfully made decision should be upheld by events which took place after that decision was made. In my opinion, the original arbcom decision should be upheld or revoked based on what took place prior to the original decision. Any subsequent behaviour should be judged on its own merits. I see this process as revoking an incorrect judgment, not as an appeal for 'early release'.

Regards Osli73 10:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Osli73 has repeatedly violated the terms of his parole. He created a sockpuppet KarlXII with which he created fake conversations between Osli73 and KarlXII in a willful attempt to deceive people. With the sockpuppet KarlXII, he continued the behavior that got him on parole in the first place. What purpose does it serve to lessen (?!) the penalties at a time when he should be facing more restrictions for this behavior?89.146.130.23 22:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As I have explained before, this inappropriate behavior was due to personal threats (off wikipedia) and harassment (much of it by you, some recent examples ). The identity change was to avoid personal threats, not avoid the remedy (KarlXII existed before the ARBCOM decision). This does not excuse the sockpuppeteering, but it explains it. Regards Osli73 10:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Would this biographical stub be associated with depleted uranium?

I am prohibited from editing articles "associated" with depleted uranium, but what is and is not associated has never been defined. This has caused some difficulty, but not so much as to be insurmountable. For example, an arbitration clerk has claimed that Gulf War syndrome is associated with DU, while my erstwhile arbitration opponents insist that there is no such association.

I would like to create the following biographical stub:

John Taschner is a member of the technical staff in the Environment, Safety and Health Division of Los Alamos National Laboratory where he is involved in radiological transportation accident exercise planning. Prior to coming to Los Alamos, Taschner was Deputy Director of the US Navy's Radiological Controls Program Office in Washington, DC, and has held numerous key health physics management positions with the US Navy and Air Force. Since the 1970s, Taschner has served on several radiation protection standards committees. Since 1992, Taschner has been the Vice Chairman of the American National Standards Institute's N43 Committee, which writes radiation safety standards for non-medical radiation producing equipment. In the 1980s, Taschner received an award from the US Navy for convincing them to use tungsten instead of depleted uranium munitions in the Phalanx CIWS ship defense system. Taschner has been a member of the Health Physics Society since 1958 and is a member of the American Academy of Health Physics. Taschner earned his M.S. in radiation biophysics from the University of Kansas in 1966 and, in 1973, received his certification in Health Physics by the American Board of Health Physics.

My inclination is that Taschner's association with depleted uranium is not strong enough to consider his biography "associated" with DU. I respectfully request clarification from the arbitrators concerning their opinion on this question. In the event that the biography is considered associated with depleted uranium, I would request suggestions for how I should submit this request to other editors (because a non-existant article doesn't have a talk page.) If no comments are forthcomming within seven days, I will create the biographical article in the interest of making a comprehensive and accurate encyclopedia. James S. 19:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And in comes the camels nose! Non notable biography and would not survive a Vfd as his name only brings up 79 hits in google Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Taschner easily satisfies Misplaced Pages:Notability (people) because he has made widely recognized contributions that are part of the enduring historical record in his field, and has received multiple independent awards for his work, as TDC's Google hits show (and is even more clear if you include his middle initial.) James S. 19:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say he's clearly "associated" with depleted uranium. The only even arguably notable sourced detail in that stub is that he received an award for his opposition to depleted uranium. My recommndation would be (1) if you wrote a stub that didn't mention depleted uranium in any respect or link to any page discussing depleted uranium, you would probably be fine; (2) if you do write about depleted uranium, then you're writing about something "associated" with depleted uranium; and (3) since your stub doesn't include reference to multiple independent non-trivial published accounts discussing Dr. Taschner, it will probably get deleted as non-notable under WP:BIO. TheronJ 15:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: On Feb 5, 2007, James added the John C. Taschner stub that he proposed above, using his new username. As I stated, I personally think that adding a stub for a government employee whose only claim to notability is his opposition to depleted uranium is pretty clearly editing an article "related to depleted uranium," but maybe we need some clarification from an Arb Comm member or clerk. Thanks, TheronJ 16:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, he isn't notable because he was opposed to DU, but because the Navy gave him an award for convincing them not to use it, and because the Health Physics Society awarded him a fellowship -- multiple independent awards, as per WP:BIO. His interaction with DU was a very small part of his life, most of which has been spent on the Accident Response Group preparing to clean up after nuclear weapons incidents. Secondly, without clarification on what is and is not "associated" with depleted uranium, my restriction is unreasonably vague. James S. 03:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

James, you are Wikilawyering. I have nuked it, leave it to some other editor who does not have this sanction against them. It is self-evidently the case that his purported notability rests in large part on DU, and if you edit the article you;re asking for trouble. Please just respect the ruling. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"he isn't notable because he was opposed to DU, but because the Navy gave him an award for convincing them not to use it." Say wha...? Perhaps others can handle cognitive dissonance better than I can. Raymond Arritt 23:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page)

Osli73

On 21 October 2006 the Kosovo arbcom found that I had been given 96 hours probation for edit warring on the Srebrenica massacre article and based on this (presumably) gave me one years probation and revert parole. I have a couple of questions regarding this remedy.

• why did the Kosovo arbcom consider my misconduct on the Srebrenica massacre article? Nowehere is the Srebrenica massacre article names as a 'related article'. Nowhere is the reasoning for linking the two articles given.
• it seems a rather harsh remedy to give me one years probation and revert parole for a 'crime' which I had already served time for (so to say).
• is it possible to appeal the Kosovo arbcom's decision?

Sincere regards Osli73 10:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this happened. I don't see any edits at all that you made to Kosovo. Fred Bauder 18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved that the two remedies applied to Osli73 be revoked. Fred Bauder 18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. When we look at a case, we certainly may take into account a party's total behavior if it is relevant in coming to a conclusion. In some cases ignoring a wider problem because of concerns about scope is harmful; it's a judgment call. Since the case, Osli has been blocked for violation of his remedies, and using a sockpuppet to evade detection. And I note that Osli has repeatedly been edit warring at Srebrenica massacre for months now; in fact, 30 seconds perusing shows that he violated his revert parole yesterday: , . Lessening the restrictions at this point seems counterproductive. Dmcdevit·t 05:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

Archives

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (extremely sparse, selective, and unofficial)

• Misplaced Pages arbitration
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee