Revision as of 22:57, 10 May 2024 view sourceAirshipJungleman29 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors44,272 edits →Statement by AirshipJungleman29: edit← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:40, 10 May 2024 view source Thryduulf (talk | contribs)Oversighters, Administrators98,989 edits →Statement by Thryduulf: more the double the number of people have participated in RMs than the RFC,Next edit → | ||
Line 115: | Line 115: | ||
=== Statement by Thryduulf === | === Statement by Thryduulf === | ||
I closed the RM noted as anticipating a move review, based on multiple other move reviews being initiated when the close didn't go the way one or other side wanted. It's clear to me that there are conduct issues, I had cause to single out Born2Cycle as the worst but far from only offender in that RM for example. Multiple of the other parties are familiar from other page titling disputes too, which have failed to be resolved at AN(I), so I strongly suspect there will be an arbitration case around the topic of page titles and/or other manual of style issues at some point but I don't think this specific dispute is the right framing for that. The first step to settling the content aspect here should be to assess whether the consensus of commenters in the NCROY RFC matches the consensus of the community at large, and if not what to do about that. Those are not questions for arbcom. ] (]) 19:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC) | I closed the RM noted as anticipating a move review, based on multiple other move reviews being initiated when the close didn't go the way one or other side wanted. It's clear to me that there are conduct issues, I had cause to single out Born2Cycle as the worst but far from only offender in that RM for example. Multiple of the other parties are familiar from other page titling disputes too, which have failed to be resolved at AN(I), so I strongly suspect there will be an arbitration case around the topic of page titles and/or other manual of style issues at some point but I don't think this specific dispute is the right framing for that. The first step to settling the content aspect here should be to assess whether the consensus of commenters in the NCROY RFC matches the consensus of the community at large, and if not what to do about that. Those are not questions for arbcom. ] (]) 19:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC) | ||
:@] My comment was not presupposing the outcome of the assessment either way - and you should not be attempting to do that either. It's worth noting that numbers are not everything - if (I've not looked) the contentious RFCs are largely different people to each other that's very different to the same people repeatedly re-litigating the RFC in multiple venues. ] (]) 22:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC) | :@] My comment was not presupposing the outcome of the assessment either way - and you should not be attempting to do that either. It's worth noting that numbers are not everything - if (I've not looked) the contentious RFCs are largely different people to each other that's very different to the same people repeatedly re-litigating the RFC in multiple venues. ] (]) 22:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC) | ||
:After leaving that comment I got curious. There were by my count 22 unique editors who left substantive comments in the RFC. In the first post-RFC requested move listed in the case request 30 unique editors left unique comments (only 8 of whom participated in the RFC). Over the first 5 post-RFC RMs listed above, there were 59 unique editors who left substantive comments - 47 who did not participate in the RFC and 12 who did. Of the 47, only 14 participated in more than 1 of the 5 RMs, 6 of the 12 participated in more than one of the RMs. Based on this assessment, I don't think Guerillero's characterisation is accurate. ] (]) 23:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by AirshipJungleman29 === | === Statement by AirshipJungleman29 === |
Revision as of 23:40, 10 May 2024
"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.Shortcut
Requests for arbitration
Arbitration Committee proceedings- 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 | 0/2/0 |
Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
---|---|---|---|
Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motionsMotion name | Date posted |
---|---|
Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
Shortcuts
About this page 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 to case requests. 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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
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 Misplaced Pages talk:NCROY closed November 2, 2023 (This revision has especially been a source of the concerns behind this request.)
- RfC on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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
- I've made my position clear, the behavior in closing this discussion was unacceptable. This is what needs to be examined. @AndrewPeterT: fails to mention any of this. The close needs to be vacated, reopened for discussion, then properly closed. Closing guidelines need to unambiguously reflect that the way this was closed was unacceptable. I haven't looked at the other discussions, but if they were closed in a similar fashion, the same should apply. // Timothy :: talk 06:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Huwmanbeing
Statement by Compassionate727
Apologies if the following is not entirely coherent and/or cogent. I have not slept well in several days and am not functioning at my best.
I find my thoughts on this matter proceeding in a similar manner to Robert McClenon's. My first reaction upon seeing this late last night was that this is surely premature: this is a content dispute with no egregious conduct problems that I can recall. Many people are very unhappy about a relatively minor titling matter and the repeated litigation surrounding it is becoming a nuisance, but what's new? We're here because we enjoy sinking hundreds and thousands of hours into building a quality encyclopedia in one of the most exposed corners of the Internet; I think that makes all of us at least a little bit more obsessive and neurotic than the average person. Stuff like this is bound to happen (and does, regularly) and generally doesn't matter all that much, relatively speaking.
Having said that: the more I think about it, the more amenable I find myself to ArbCom doing… something. Guerillero is correct in his observation that many people who are aware of the global consensus have been attempting, in many cases explicitly, to oppose its implementation locally () rather than to amend the guideline. This has become quite noxious. Several related RM discussions have been listed at closure requests for months, suggesting that experienced closers are weary of dealing with them. I myself closed two of them, and partly through my own carelessness and partly because of this drama, both were challenged; I have little appetite to involve myself further.
I don't pay much attention to the world of contentious topics, but I understand situations like this to be what they are for. I know that AN can authorize contentious topics and deal with conduct disputes, but I don't anticipate AN being adequate here. AN is good for cases that are sufficiently simple or egregious to gather a critical mass of interest; I think the problems here are too subtle, and that either ArbCom will need to deal with them or the community will need to utterly exhaust itself of this business. The latter is probably actually possible in this case, but I doubt this should be considered preferable. —Compassionate727 22:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Born2cycle
Statement by Deb
Statement by Walrasiad
Statement by HouseBlaster
I probably should be listed as a proposed party, as I initiated both the Nicholas II and Edward IV/Edward V RMs.
I think this filing is premature. There have been many content discussions on this matter, but I have not seen many conduct discussions on this matter. There is a problem, but I don't think we are at the point where this an ArbCom problem. I think a referral to AN—as unappealing as that sounds—is the next thing to try here. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Robert McClenon (Royalty Naming)
This is a very poorly stated, rambling Request for Arbitration, but there may actually be a valid issue for the ArbCom to answer. My first thought was that maybe the ArbCom ought to warn the filing editor, or ought to consider whether to impose sanctions for frivolous litigation or vexatious litigation. My first thought was mistaken. The filing editor does have a valid question. The question is: Should the naming of articles on royalty be designated as a contentious topic? The filing editor lists a very large number of Requested Moves involving royalty. Maybe most of these requests are tendentious. If so, the contentious topic procedure should be used to topic-ban editors from troublesome requested moves. Alternatively, some other sort of disruptive editing may be interfering with the resolution of these naming discussions.
There is an issue for ArbCom to consider, which is whether the naming of articles on royalty is a contentious topic. ArbCom should open either a case or a discussion. The filing editor has identified a problem that ArbCom should address. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Crouch, Swale
The consensus at the autumn RFC is quite clear and as noted it brings the guideline inline with most other titles of being concise unless disambiguation is needed. Yes I understand the change in the guideline is controversial but given as noted it brings it inline with the general titling policy thus I don't think the change can be said to be controversial enough to ignore it in RMs especially when there isn't an overwhelming majority or !votes against it, see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Disclosure; I did not participate in the autumn RFC but I have participated in some of the recent RMs and MRs. I can be added as a party if people want to add me. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Jessintime
@Primefac: the issue isn't that people are starting a bunch of move requests. The problem is that certain editors are using those move requests (and move reviews) to re-argue a previously decided request for comment. (I think I've participated in some of these discussions, so that might make me involved FWIW). ~~ Jessintime (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- In response to the statement below that "The first step to settling the content aspect here should be to assess whether the consensus of commenters in the NCROY RFC matches the consensus of the community at large" I would note the RFC had two dozen participants in it. That is more participants than any of the requested moves that have taken place since then. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Thryduulf
I closed the RM noted as anticipating a move review, based on multiple other move reviews being initiated when the close didn't go the way one or other side wanted. It's clear to me that there are conduct issues, I had cause to single out Born2Cycle as the worst but far from only offender in that RM for example. Multiple of the other parties are familiar from other page titling disputes too, which have failed to be resolved at AN(I), so I strongly suspect there will be an arbitration case around the topic of page titles and/or other manual of style issues at some point but I don't think this specific dispute is the right framing for that. The first step to settling the content aspect here should be to assess whether the consensus of commenters in the NCROY RFC matches the consensus of the community at large, and if not what to do about that. Those are not questions for arbcom. Thryduulf (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Jessintime My comment was not presupposing the outcome of the assessment either way - and you should not be attempting to do that either. It's worth noting that numbers are not everything - if (I've not looked) the contentious RFCs are largely different people to each other that's very different to the same people repeatedly re-litigating the RFC in multiple venues. Thryduulf (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- After leaving that comment I got curious. There were by my count 22 unique editors who left substantive comments in the RFC. In the first post-RFC requested move listed in the case request 30 unique editors left unique comments (only 8 of whom participated in the RFC). Over the first 5 post-RFC RMs listed above, there were 59 unique editors who left substantive comments - 47 who did not participate in the RFC and 12 who did. Of the 47, only 14 participated in more than 1 of the 5 RMs, 6 of the 12 participated in more than one of the RMs. Based on this assessment, I don't think Guerillero's characterisation is accurate. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement by AirshipJungleman29
I believe Guerillero's comment is insightful. Looking at the poor opening statement of the case filer, one might hastily conclude that this is all bark and no bite, but there have been serious underlying issues of poor conduct in this topic area; most notably, as Jessintime notes, relitigation policy discussions for discussions on articles subject to the policy has been extremely common. If ArbCom choose to decline this case as premature, I would be shocked if it didn't make its way back after months of wasting time with noticeboards and talk pages and deletion/move/administrative action reviews. If there is a chance we will end with one of those contentious topics whose necessity will be bewildering in a decade's time, better now than in a year's time. I would prefer not to drive away valuable editors because of an increasingly toxic part of the project. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2024 (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.
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 <0/2/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
- Just noting for the record that I closed the first RM listed, but I do not see that as enough to merit any sort of recusal. Primefac (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Decline per Barkeep49. Primefac (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- As a thought, 15 RMs started by 10 different users across at least as many pages does not strike me as particularly tendentious or intentionally disruptive. Primefac (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Decline per Barkeep49. Primefac (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Absent further evidence from the community, I'm inclined to decline this request largely for the reasons that House Blaster lays out. The conduct part of this hasn't gone through the community channels yet which would make ArbCom intervention premature at this time. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Decline for the reason above. However, "multi-editor dispute with good faith but potentially bad actions on both sides" is something that ends up at ArbCom because our processes often produce better results for this kind of dispute. So while this is not yet ready for ArbCom, in my opinion, I'm also not saying there needs to be years of community attempts to resolve conduct issues before it would be appropriate for ArbCom. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I am open to a case here. Trying to LOCALCONSENSUS your way out of a larger RFC can be extremely disruptive. --Guerillero 20:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)