< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:35, 23 March 2019 view sourceBeeblebrox (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators113,450 edits →Statement by {Non-party}: cmt← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:06, 24 March 2019 view source Thryduulf (talk \| contribs)Oversighters, Administrators98,989 edits →Statement by Thryduulf: initial statementNext edit →
Line 41:		Line 41:
	=== Statement by BrownHairedGirl ===		=== Statement by BrownHairedGirl ===
	=== Statement by Thryduulf ===		=== 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 ] (particularly the subsection ]) and ]. 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 ] 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 ]. ] (]) 00:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

	===Statemnt by Beeblebrox===		===Statemnt by Beeblebrox===
	I've been following this saga and been very marginally involved in it, and I am afraid I agree, there is a conduct aspect here that the community can't seem to resolve. I think there is probably a case to be made that one or two people personally ''tripling'' the number of portals we have in a very slapdash manner is in fact disruptive editing, and for at least one of them this isn't the first time they've done something like this. ] (]) 23:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)		I've been following this saga and been very marginally involved in it, and I am afraid I agree, there is a conduct aspect here that the community can't seem to resolve. I think there is probably a case to be made that one or two people personally ''tripling'' the number of portals we have in a very slapdash manner is in fact disruptive editing, and for at least one of them this isn't the first time they've done something like this. ] (]) 23:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:06, 24 March 2019

Shortcut

WP:ARC

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Portal Issues		23 March 2019	0/0/1

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

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

Motion 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.

File an arbitration request

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.

Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.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.
- Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

This page is for statements, not discussion.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
Declined case requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

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

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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.

Statement by The Transhumanist

Statement by SMcCandlish

Statement by Legacypac

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:FAITACCOMPLIS. Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Statemnt by Beeblebrox

I've been following this saga and been very marginally involved in it, and I am afraid I agree, there is a conduct aspect here that the community can't seem to resolve. I think there is probably a case to be made that one or two people personally tripling the number of portals we have in a very slapdash manner is in fact disruptive editing, and for at least one of them this isn't the first time they've done something like this. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:35, 23 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)"> ">