Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Case - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by North8000 (talk | contribs) at 21:11, 20 January 2013 (→Statement by named but not involved North8000). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:11, 20 January 2013 by North8000 (talk | contribs) (→Statement by named but not involved North8000)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Single-payer health care   18 January 2013 {{{votes}}}
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-l@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.
    • 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.

Single-payer health care

Initiated by CartoonDiablo (talk) at 09:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by CartoonDiablo

The fundamental argument is whether the polls in the article are polls of single-payer healthcare or polls of various types of government healthcare and thus do not warrant inclusion in the article. It has gone through 4 different noticeboards and one RfC and will most likely not be solved outside of arbitration. Given the format of the section, I will refrain from making the case towards a side or comment on user behavior. CartoonDiablo (talk) 09:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

@Roger Davies It has gone through the normal process including 4 noticeboards and it's still not solved nor will it be solved. The problem is a fundamental difference over what people consider to be objective reality. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by named but not involved North8000

This is just the refusal by CartoonDiablo to participate in discussion at the article talk page on this content issue, and forum shopping at many places (and rightly striking out at all of them) ) instead. Further, there is no current dispute because there because it looks like there were only 2 editors involved, and one of them (CartoonDiablo) has been forum shopping instead of participating. So now it is basically a one person "discussion", Thargor Orlando, who has been very reasonable in trying to get a discussion going. Talk:Single-payer health care The others there have just dropped in trying to help. My presence was due to an uninvolved admin asking me for ideas. I dropped in for a short time to try to help and don't want to do anything beyond that....I want to leave this article soon. I have not expressed any opinion and do not have any opinion on the question posed in this ArbCom request. Also, IMO the question is mal-formed. It should be phrased in terms of article content. I believe that the mal-formed, "finding of RW fact" question, divorced from article content questions was chosen so as to be able to imply an article content finding which overrides Misplaced Pages content policies. Further, CartoonDiablo has been using each forum in the long string of forum shopping as an excuse to avoid discussion at the article talk page while still editing the article.

The talk page of the article (Talk:Single-payer health care) makes all of the above abundantly clear. North8000 (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Scjessey

Sigh. I have been loosely involved in this matter since I was brought into it as an uninvolved mediator roughly eleventy-billion years ago. The content dispute part of it was really resolved back then, but the rough consensus established at the time was ignored by Thargor Orlando. Thargor has stubbornly continued to argue against that earlier consensus with extraordinary, single-minded dedication. At this point, everyone else involved has been driven away from the article (and a related article) so that it is now just CartoonDiablo and Thargor Orlando standing in the middle of the ring and beating each other to death without moving. I have stayed away from the article for some time, but every so often I've been summoned to some form of dispute resolution to make one of these stupid statements. Cartoon Diablo has been accused of forum shopping, and there is an element of that, but I think it is borne out of frustration over Thargor's complete inflexibility on this topic. I do not think Arbitration is necessary, but I would advocate a topic ban for Thargor Orlando for taking a tendentious approach. CartoonDiablo could probably do with a break as well, but I do not believe that editor's actions deserve sanction.

I shall not be watching this page in case my head explodes, so If anyone needs anything further from me I would request that someone leaves a message on my talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Okay, I watched it. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggested that this matter go to RfC/U months ago (including in the DRN) because of Thargor Orlando's behavior, not the behavior of anyone else. CartoonDiablo has been trying every Misplaced Pages avenue to resolve the situation, which is not the same as the "forum shopping" being alleged by other involved editors. Let me make this clear for members of the Committee: the specific problem here is agenda-driven editing with unwillingness to compromise. This poor behavior has been enabled by the appearance recently of other editors who share the same political ideology as Thargor. Misplaced Pages articles should be neutral, and that is not the same as balanced. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Note: Thargor Orlando has now filed an RfC/U against CartoonDiablo. I see this as further evidence of Thargor's single-minded, agenda-driven approach. Easier to attack the user than accept consensus is against you, I guess. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Thargor Orlando

If ArbCom does decide to take this up, it should be done solely within the context of the behavior of a handful of involved editors, CartoonDiablo especially, and not within a content dispute that can be resolved with enough fresh eyes.

CD’s behavior has pretty much stood in the way of gaining any consensus on the article. The dispute is over 8 months old at this point (arguably it’s actually well over a year old), spanning multiple articles (Single-payer health care, Public opinion on health care reform in the United States, and United States National Health Care Act), and encompassing multiple disputes. CD doesn’t understand the point of dispute resolution processes, believing them to be binding to content as well as using it as a bludgeon to build a case for ArbCom. He consistently asserts a consensus that doesn’t exist (, ), accuses his “opponents” of canvassing (falsely), edit wars (including 3RR violation), and creates bad-faith sockpuppet allegations, all in an attempt to remove those who disagree with him from the process. This is not his only conflict, either, as he’s had numerous issues with other editors at the Psychotherapy-related articles, at Thomas Sowell (which was also rejected twice by ArbCom), at War on Women, and so on.

The key point in all of CD’s disputes? His self-professed point of view which causes him to push viewpoints from single payer health care to political talking points to questionable or outright partisan sources to articles (more: . His point of view editing stands in the way of gaining consensus throughout most of the contentious articles he edits in, and results in factual issues and tendentious editing.

Again, if there’s an issue for ArbCom to address, it’s behavioral. CD will likely see his behavior addressed in some form with or without ArbCom involvement, so I see no need to accept this case, but if it is accepted, the laundry list is quite long.

  • To User:AGK, I considered an RFC/U at one point regarding this information. Given CD's claims about what dispute resolution is for, his threats of ArbCom whenever he fails to get his way, and his history of forum shopping, I see no evidence that that simply shunting this to yet another forum that CD won't accept as legitimate will help solve the problem in play, but rather might delay eventual resolution. I may have been premature in thinking this could be solved through eventual channels. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Arzel

Again?!? Just slap CD with a WP:TROUT and end this endless forum shoping. Additionally, there is no evidence to indicate that CD would even accept the result of ArbCom unless the result is exactly what he thinks it should be. Arzel (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Single-payer health care: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/0/1>-Single-payer_health_care-2013-01-18T11:42:00.000Z">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

  • Comment: awaiting statements though my current instinct is to decline. Is there any particular reason why this needs to come to ArbCom rather than be handled in the ordinary way through administrative action or via the administrators' noticeboard?  Roger Davies 11:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)"> ">
  • Although this was at one stage a content dispute, it appears to have evolved into a problem of user conduct. Given that those problems have not been referred to the community for action, it seems to me as though an administrators' noticeboard or a user conduct RFC would be more appropriate than a full arbitration case. I'm inclined to decline this request. AGK 14:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline as a content dispute; while it seems there may be conduct issues involved, none of the linked discussions appear to have addressed those conduct issues and instead focused solely on content. ArbCom will not decide matters of content, and I'd like to see some community-based effort to resolve the conduct issues before we hear the case. I would recommend an RFCU as the best course of action, as a discussion on AN may become unnecessarily drama-filled. Hersfold non-admin 18:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
    • @Thargor Orlando: If a user who is the subject of an RFCU refuses to acknowledge and agree to improve upon behavioral issues in the light of a clear consensus that there are in fact issues, that could be grounds for administrative action (i.e. blocks) without the need for a drawn-out and exhausting arbitration case. That is, if the RFCU determines a user is disruptive, and the user continues that same behavior, an uninvolved administrator would be well within their authority to block said user for disruptive editing. A conduct resolution process does not need to have the weight of ArbCom behind it to be binding - the will of the community is stronger. Hersfold non-admin 18:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Leaning towards decline at this time; I'm of the opinion that a well-presented case (not by either TO or CD) would have the potential to attract one or more uninvolved administrators that would be able to handle this in a better fashion than an arbitration case. I'll await more statements before making up my mind. NW (Talk) 21:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline. Content discussion is ongoing. There is some edit warring, but this is not conduct serious enough for ArbCom. Edit warring can be dealt with by requesting the attention of an uninvolved admin who can decide to issue blocks and/or lock the article. SilkTork 22:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline There are some issues here, but nothing beyond the normal level of competence of a forum like ANEW. Courcelles 07:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline. T. Canens (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline. Salvio 13:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline per Hersfold, NW and Courcelles. Carcharoth (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)