| Revision as of 16:09, 15 September 2012 view sourceJclemens (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,475 edits →Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0): comment->decline← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:40, 15 September 2012 view source NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators83,665 edits Case request declinedNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}} | <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}} | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}} | ||
| == Derogatory slurs injected into NFL fanbase == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 03:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{userlinks|Marketdiamond}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{userlinks|Bdb484}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|76.189.97.59}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|GrapedApe}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|76.189.108.102}} | |||
| ''Either stepped down or were not very active: | |||
| *{{userlinks|Kerfuffler}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|IRWolfie-}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|blackngold29}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Czarkoff}} | |||
| <!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. --> | |||
| ;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *](Very old predating some current editors) | |||
| *] | |||
| Some individual related activity (disclaimer: not aimed at any individual editor at this time simply to show the maturity, frustration and ripeness of the impasse along with some fraying of nerves by everyone (myself, Marketdiamond included): | |||
| ** | |||
| ***] | |||
| **] | |||
| **] | |||
| **] | |||
| **] | |||
| ** | |||
| ** | |||
| ** | |||
| Attempts for guidance about "next step" falling on deaf ears: | |||
| *] | |||
| === Statement by Marketdiamond === | |||
| * the discussion was closed as late as this (because "stale"), by a volunteer who stepped down after only my 1st response but then had me reply to a , which instead of addressing at the time I ], 14 days of DNR was responding to day 1 questions over and over. I learned the hard way (and I don't take pleasure saying this) not to trust official DNR actions nor the charts time. Since "conduct" is repeatedly looked for I've got more (nothing horrible but more death by a dozen cuts). . . hoping to focus on getting the point resolved not further explore failings--mine included, '''just please don't think there was an active and volunteer directed discussion at DNR when I opened this''', wasn't my call but it was over. ] (]) 19:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Last addition, I consider the inclusion of ] and ] conduct, I don't see any editors in the same light as Cizmar (I think it was a misguided attempt to add "balance" for "balance" sake) but it would be like any irrelevant posting that the author meant to offend with, to be fair I haven't mentioned this a lot but only because I thought it was obvious, a page about a team fanbase. ] (]) 21:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| My sincere hope was for DNR, thou I noticed more comments "describing" my responses and others, edit wars and editor talkpage asides, vol step down then in and self deleted and more. I'm all for consensus w/o Arbit but 18 days on 2 slurs in a sports article is different world views. | |||
| 1) ] & ] should place responsibility on those adding . "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." | |||
| 2) Thus deletion of ] & ] is needed until Cizmar's reasoning is supported of | |||
| ], and '']'' sources connecting ] to those phrases. Violations of ], ], and ] IMO. | |||
| 3) Cizmars logic fails ], ], ] when of | |||
| . An editor (falsely) assailed as ] but that is just ] to Cizmars few testable anecdotes. | |||
| 4) It should be ] that a broad fanbase can't be ] referenced as: ]<br> | |||
| ] based on 1 opinion piece. | |||
| 5) IMO ] to inject racial/ethnic slurs into a broad fanbase even if it has a ]. | |||
| 6) I.e. ] Cizmar calls , but on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| 7) ] fits into the wiki description of: "]" and its parent is the ] and infamous for ] and was the target of ] | |||
| 8) Cizmars racial/ethnic piece IMO is a take on the ], faulty logic should be . | |||
| PS: Not against a lower level but read DNR history (4 ring circus) . . . PNTs "slurs" is not a typical item, emotions run high and its been 18 days. Thankyou ] (]) 17:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Bdb484 === | |||
| I'm open to arbitration. Before I write anything up, though, I think it should be noted that this is still going through the , as painfully slow as that process is. — ] ] 05:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I may have spoken too soon. The DRN has since been closed, though I'm still not sure ARBCOM is the right venue for this disagreement. — ] ] 15:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm in the process of putting together an RFC request. I'm hopeful that will bring in enough fresh eyes to move us forward. — ] ] 16:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by 76.189.97.59 === | |||
| === Statement by GrapedApe === | |||
| I responded to the request for assistance at ]. The previous version was clearly inappropriate. I added material to make it more NPOV tone (). Though, now, I now think that the material is probably so inconsequential (2 random insults by newspapers in rival sports teams) as to be below the standard of inclusion in this article.--] (]) 15:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by 76.189.108.102 === | |||
| === Statement by Kerfuffler === | |||
| There's too much crap going on here for me to say much. I did review the quote in question, and as I commented, I think it has a poor combination of WP:UNDUE and WP:OFFENSIVE. I also question whether the article it came from can be considered WP:RS in the first place, given that it's obviously a sports editorial with provocative language. I think this might have been better material for a RfC than an ArbCom request. —{{SubSup|] |]|]}} 05:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| On reflection, I concur with ]'s statement; there have been persistent misconduct issues related to this. Even I was attacked when I reviewed the situation and offered my input. —{{SubSup|] |]|]}} 18:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by IRWolfie- === | |||
| I'm one of the DRN volunteers but I was inactive. Someone has clearly made a mistake and put this in the wrong venue. This should be at ] for dispute resolution, not arbitration which is for user conduct. ] (]) 09:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by blackngold29=== | |||
| <small>User has made it clear he wishes not to participate however in good faith I will defer to committee or actual user for decision. ] (]) 04:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
| === Statement by Czarkoff=== | |||
| I am a DRN volunteer who tried to cope with this case. As I noted in DRN case, I don't see these terms as offensive ''enough'' to be removed from quoted text, given that they are clearly and unambiguously attributed to the source. IMO these terms belong to the gray zone between ] and ] without directly falling into one of these categories, and their inclusion should be decided upon ] and ] policies, not anything else. I would also note that I see two potential conduct disputes here (alleged abuse of derogatory terms and whitewashing crusade). — ] (]•]) 10:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC) <span style="font-size:85%;"><ins>updated 10:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)</ins></span> | |||
| === Statement by uninvolved ] === | |||
| I have an interest in American Football articles in the broad sense, and I frequently work in the area, though I am entirely uninvolved in this current dispute, I have been silently observing it with a mild interest. I would urge ArbCom to reject this request as I don't believe that all avenues of community resolution have been tried. Things have been heated at times, but not uncontrollably so, and in general while the two sides involved in the dispute broadly disagree, there is some progress being made and it just needs to be given the time to work itself out. The DRN discussion noted above is two weeks old, but it is still active as of a few hours ago, and still producing results. There are also other avenues if that fails, such as ] or mediation, and I don't see this request as having merit; indeed given that active discussion seems to be still happening among several parties this seems to border on ]. This seems very premature, and I think that the community needs to be given ample time to work this out. It has been a difficult dispute, but not intractably so, and progress is being made. --]''''']''''' 05:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by uninvolved ] === | |||
| I have been watching this dispute unfold and was taken aback to find that an arbitration request had been filed. This is too premature by far. Not only are there avenues of resolution have have not been attempted, but there are ongoing resolution efforts that still need to be examined before leaping headfirst into arbitration. I do, however, feel that this request speaks more of overzealousness than it does forum shopping. This dispute is still in its youth, and I feel that it would be best to see if it can work itself out before resorting to the most extreme of measures. Or at the very least, wait until the current processes have resolved themselves before moving forward with new ones. ] 05:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by mostly uninvolved ] === | |||
| Annother DRN volunteer here. In response to the Arbs (as of this point 15:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)), the DRN filing is now closed with a recomendation to RFC or MedCom. As one who looked at the issue several times, I suspect part of the reason why the DRN filing lasted so long (10 days longer than the standard "Close" period) is because no volunteer wanted to touch that filing for the outright hosility that was going back and forth in the commentary. Discounting the content issue, there are significant conduct/personality issues intertwined with the content issue that I feel ArbCom would be the appropriate lancet for draining the boil of this dispute. ] (]) 15:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I allege conduct misbehavor strictly on the less than civil way that the editors behaved themselves in the DRN filing. We see the typical incivil boldings, nitpicking over what are truly minor issues, 2 volunteers step down from trying to help, and adding the completely unnecessary formatting that has characterized (in my mind) a content dispute that has boiled over and become a war of personalities. I reiterate that, as evidenced by the previous attempts at resolution indicate, the conduct issue is such that it is preventing the resolution of the underlying content issue. ] (]) 17:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :@Hersfold (19:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)) I don't think there has been any positive action yet, however the way the entrenched parties are behaving (IMO) seems as though lower levels of ConductDR may only be ticket punches before returning back to ArbCom. ] (]) 19:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by DRN volunteer ] === | |||
| I agree completly with Hasteur's comment above, to drain the conduct dispute before even thinking about the content, of which seems to me in this case less important. When I saw the section, I knew that I would not even try to help, as it was getting out of hand and uncivil. I think that the conduct dispute could be solved with interaction and topic bans, as they are not able to discuss productilvly, and the abuse of the page(s). ~~]]~~ → <small><span class="nowrap">]</span></small> 01:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Alanscottwalker === | |||
| This is a plea to those involved to step back and re-access. Ask: Apart from any policy, how relevant is the content objected to? And, can the words of the source(s) be paraphrased for encyclopedic tone, without the words objected to? ] (]) 17:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| === Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0) === | |||
| *Awaiting statements, but leaning decline at this point as premature, if indeed the other dispute resolution processes are still ongoing. ] (]) 05:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Decline''' in line with my first impressions and my colleagues' opinions below. ] (]) 16:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline'''. While understanding the frustration in dealing with disputes, there is an on this matter going on right now, and the Committee only gets involved after other resolution attempts have been exhausted; in addition, this is a content issue, and the Committee only deals with conduct issues. It should be noted that dispute resolution can take a long time; while this can be frustrating for those involved, it is generally better for the project as a whole if one process is allowed to reach conclusion before starting another. ''']''' ''']''' 09:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline at this stage''' because other dispute-resolution methods short of arbitration will hopefully be sufficient to resolve this dispute, and I don't see any user misconduct issues. (Although it's not within the purview of arbitrators to resolve the content dispute, I will add the personal observation that I'm a U.S-based editor who has been a fan of American football for 40ish years, and I have never heard this particular terminology used.) ] (]) 15:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *Awaiting a statement from the filing party, but strongly leaning towards a decline at this time, particularly with this just now headed towards an RFC. <s>Also, without any allegations of user misconduct, there is nothing for us to rule on here.</s> Somehow I skipped over Hasteur's statement, but Hasteur is the only one so far that had alleged any form of misconduct, which leads me to believe that what issues are present can be easily handled at a lower level for now. ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 17:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **@ Marketdiamond: I'm having extreme difficulty understanding most of your statement, particularly the specific concerns that led you to request an arbitration case. Could you please refrain from using abbreviations specific to the area of dispute, and limit the use of abbreviations to commonly-known Misplaced Pages shortcuts (such as ], etc.)? Complete sentences would help too. ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 19:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **@ Hasteur: Thanks for clarifying. Has there been any attempt to deal with the conduct concerns specifically, such as through blocks, or warnings from uninvolved users? ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 19:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ***Hmm. Hopefully not, but we'll see. I'd like to allow Bdb484's RFC to have a chance to resolve issues here, or for the parties to go through some form of mediation first. In addition to the concerns about this being a primarily content issue, I'm worried that if this case were to be accepted at this time the incivility wouldn't be at a level that would merit any more than a "slap-on-the-wrist" type remedy (not to mention the fact that this so far seems relatively tame given that the subject matter is American Football ;-) ). ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 19:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **On further review and on reading Marketdiamond's revised statement (thank you), '''decline''' as primarily a content dispute with other means of dispute resolution available and underway. ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 20:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' per the three previous. I think this can be solved through earlier venues. ] 18:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline.''' As has already been said, we can reasonably expect community-based dispute resolution to achieve an acceptable compromise. ] ]] 23:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:40, 15 September 2012
Requests for arbitration
Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open cases| 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 motions| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 10 January 2025 |
| 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
|
lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.