Revision as of 10:02, 24 March 2019

• WP:ARC

Requests for arbitration

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

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Portal Issues

Initiated by Robert McClenon (talk) at 22:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Robert McClenon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• The Transhumanist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SMcCandlish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Legacypac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Thryduulf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• The Transhumanist
• SMcCandlish
• Legacypac
• BrownHairedGirl
• Thryduulf

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Thousands of Portals
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legacypac and portals
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1005#User:SMcCandlish disregarding ban from my talk

Statement by Robert McClenon

This is a request for arbitration of conduct issues involving portals, including the creation of portals, and debates over the deletion of portals. There have been several threads at WP:AN and WP:ANI on this topic, and some of the cases are still open, as listed above. Perhaps the most heated is also listed above, which resulted in no consensus with regard to the two parties, but a widely expressed view that the matter would need to go to ArbCom. Arbitration is a last resort and is needed when the community is unable to resolve a conflict, as is evident in this case. The primary focus is Miscellany for Deletion discussions for the requested deletion of portals, and Deletion discussions are often controversial. I am asking ArbCom to consider whether either ArbCom discretionary sanctions should be available in deletion discussions in general. I am of course also asking ArbCom to consider whether civility violations by the parties require sanctions. I am also asking ArbCom to consider whether the creation of thousands of portals, some of them defective, by User:The Transhumanist and others, was disruptive editing in itself.

The community is divided by at least three types of issues. The first is policy issues, of what the policy should be regarding the creation and maintenance of portals. The consensus in May 2018 not to abolish portals was not a consensus to create thousands of new portals. The second type of issues is questions of deletion or retention of portals, and deletion is a content issue. The third is conduct issues, which interfere with the orderly resolution of the policy and content issues. I am specifically asking ArbCom to resolve the conduct issues.

Follow-Up Comments

I have no objection to a mandated hiatus on requests for the deletion of portals. However, I find the statement of concern that the critics of portals are attempting a fait accompli by piecemeal deletion of portals after discussion in a public community forum to be ironic, after thousands of portals were created without discussion and then their existence has been cited as the status quo that should be left alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by The Transhumanist

Statement by SMcCandlish

Statement by Legacypac

2. At Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Alhambra, California User:Ɱ (who should be party if this proceeds) says "A guideline (WP:POG) that I don't have to follow" and "you even stated in one that you were spreading out the nominations (not several portals in one nom) in order to give the impression of more nominations against small city portals. That's essentially fraud." I believe this is a bad faith fabrication.
3. In the same MFD TTH says which is very problematic.

1. If this is accepted I'm prepared to show User:Thryduulf behavior is suboptimal. By suggesting we stop MFDs now he is forumshopping arbcomm to get what he can't get at the AN ] discussion. Even if all Portal MfDs close delete, the deletion rate per day will be much slower than the creation rate per day as seen here

Statement by BrownHairedGirl

Statement by Thryduulf

There are two types of conduct issue here - those around the mass creation of the portals and those related to the subsequent effort to delete them. The first has stopped completely, one of the principal proponents, The Transhumanist (TTH), has been recently topic banned (long after the fact) and ~5 days later this topic ban has not been breached.

Several users, most notably Legacypac, but BrownHairedGirl (BHG) and others also, have (in the words of Certes) declared a "war on portals" - with countless MfD nominations and numerous proposals to speedy delete them and/or restrict the - see WP:AN#Thousands of Portals (particularly the subsection WP:AN#Proposal 4: Provide for CSD criterion X3) and WT:CSD#Extend R2 to portals. Opinions that do not align with the view that all mass created portals should be deleted as quickly as possible (for whatever reason and to whatever degree) are frequently met with hostility, assumptions of bad faith, borderline incivility and misrepresentation (see WP:AN/I#Legacypac and portals for some examples.)

I would recommend that the committee look into the conduct of all parties (myself included) and pass a temporary injunction against new MfD nominations of portals (by everyone) until the case concludes or all RfCs relating to the deletion of portals are formally closed, whichever happens first. There have been 23 new nominations of portals (some covering tens of portals) in the last three days alone, causing the appearance of attempting WP:FAITACCOMPLI. Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@SilkTork: and others. This is a mix of content and conduct disputes, the former are obviously outside arbcom's jurisdiction but the conduct issues which are hindering collegial resolution of those issues (see for another report on Legacypac for example) is very much within arbcom's remit. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by SmokeyJoe

This is a years old Portals / Outlines issue, and I think it is frustrating generally due to the lack of agreed forum. For years, Portals have been discussed at MfD, but MfD processes just one at a time. Outlines have largely been pushed out in the direction of Portals. Portals have recently become a feature in multiple threads at AN, and WT:CSD. WT:Portals has hosted discussions, but few opposed to Portals bother going there. Now there are RfCs in the works, in userspace, where userspace-ownership has proven an issue. I think no editors are at fault, all act in good faith. I think what is needed is an agreement to a central discussion, not AN, not MfD, not WT:CSD. This is an unusual discussion because one option on the cards is the depreciation of an entire namespace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

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.

Portal Issues: Clerk notes

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

Portal Issues: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/1>-Portal_Issues-2019-03-23T22:45:00.000Z">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Recuse. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)"> ">
• I would like to hear from the other named parties and wider community, but based upon the preliminary statements so far, I could see a case being useful here if only to examine the issue of conduct more closely. Mkdw 03:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing where ArbCom could be involved in the Portals discussion - that appears to me to be a community discussion, and one which the community are dealing with. However, there is some heat between SMcCandlish and BrownHairedGirl, which would be worth getting a wider view on to see if a case is needed. SilkTork (talk) 05:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)