Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Resolving disputes contains the official policy on dispute resolution for English Wikipedia. Arbitration is generally the last step, when a dispute cannot be resolved by any other means including informal or formal mediation, or by asking the community its opinion on the matter.

This page is focused on discussing the requests for arbitration process itself (specifically, the information on the project page attached to this talkpage). Requesting that a case be taken up here isn't likely to help you, but those of us in the dispute resolution community would be happy to assist.
Shortcut:
WT:RFARB
Please click here to file an Arbitration case • Please click here for a guide to Arbitration
WT:RFAR Archives

1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5
• 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10
11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15
16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20
21 • 22 • 23 • 24 • 25

Contents

[edit] TTN

Is an arb going to clarify anything regarding TTN's case? Hiding T 18:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently yes. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is Kirill's proposals regarding User:Kww completely inappropriate? Kww was given no restrictions during the cases, and hasn't had so much as an RfC or an AN/I thread. I'm not even sure if ArbCom is allowed to make restrictions like this, outside of a case under the guise of clarification. -- Ned Scott 02:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
A related discussion at User talk:Ned Scott#TTN might be of some interest to some people here. Please feel free to comment, even if you disagree with my comments to Kirill (a sanity check, perhaps). I'm very troubled by the proposals being made here for the EC case. -- Ned Scott 07:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
You're not the only one, Ned. SirFozzie (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The Kww thing was a surprise to me. I probably don't have all the relevant pages watchlisted so I'm curious as to how the Kww thing happened. Anyone know? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Kirill's statement is As far as Kww goes, you may feel that equating the editors that worked on Bulbasaur with penis spammers is acceptable, but I do not. Were it up to me, he'd be off the project for that little burst of odiousness alone. The least I can do is keep him away from the areas where he's likely to actually put such an ideology into practice. I suspect that my frequent advocacy in favor of TTN weighs in as well, as well as my opinion that the sanctions from E&C2 are being misapplied, and my vocalness in that regard.
As for the evil comment itself, I'm surprised that people skip over that word would. I would, but I won't, because I can't. I campaigned for a while to get "article is about a single television episode" added as a CSD category. Didn't work, so I don't go nominating episode articles for deletion. I obey process, even when I believe it to be wrong.
As for Bulbasaur, it and Dammit, Janet! are two of the worst articles on Wikipedia, and I won't apologise for thinking that way. At least when an article reads Fred discovers the secret of the ultra-gamma-neutron device, and brings the Emerald Space Station into danger you know you aren't reading a real encyclopedia article. When you read something with 40 or 50 footnotes, you assume you are reading the real deal. Very few readers take the time to actually check the footnotes out. In both cases, you would quickly find that the outside world references are nothing but passing mentions that do little or nothing to support the information presented. In Bulbasaur's case, they are nearly 100% self-published references, from official game guides and graphic novels. I've taken Dammit, Janet! to AFD, and filed an ANI report when Bulbasaur was unredirected while under protection. Have I edit warred? No. Have I vandalised the articles in question? No. Do I participate discussions that will hopefully someday change the rules so that both articles can be removed? Absolutely yes.
My contributions speak for themselves. I spend most of my day undoing vandalism (even to Bulbasaur, when it occurs). I keep an eye on articles about the Netherlands Antilles, because I like the articles about my home to be accurate. I keep unsourced and slanderous material out of pop culture articles. When I see articles like Lindsay Lohan's untitled, unannounced new album that I heard a great rumor about, I nominate it for deletion. I keep an eye out for edits by User:JoshGotti, User:Soccermeko, and User:Editor652, and report their latest socks when they occur. I rarely wander into television episodes, but I have been involved in the Scrubs mess. Don't think anyone would consider my contribution there to be disruptive, however.Kww (talk) 11:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent Design

It is important to understand that the Arbitration committee does not do a good job of handling large, sprawling unfocused cases. Remember that they know next to nothing about the dispute, while you have been involved in it for months. A request for comment against a group of editors is somewhat non-traditional, but where the usual goal is to persuade someone by force of argument to change their behavior, here the goal is to develop a focused presentation of alleged harms and desired outcomes. For example, if you have a diff of User:Smith telling another editor, "Your contributions are not welcome and will always be reverted, go away!" you don't want to dilute the impact by including ten diffs of Smith calling editors "poopyheads." Likewise you want to focus on good editors with proven track records on other topics being driven away, and not so much on SPAs who really aren't here to learn the system and follow the rules. I would suggest opening a RFC on group conduct. Build it collaboratively in user space for a few days. Organize it logically, "Biography problems", "Hostility toward other editors", etc. Present the best evidence, filtered and focused. Don't use the process for revenge, but aim toward improvement of the encyclopedia. Try to present some remedies and desired outcomes that flow logically and proportionally from the evidence. (Arbcom will not indef ban for calling another editor a "poopyhead" for example.) Then move it to project space and ask for comments, opposing views, and so forth. Be respectful of all opposing views, and mindful of conditional or partial endorsements. You may find that the community considers some of your allegations to be weightier than others, and editors to be more or less culpable, in which case refocus the case on issues the community considers most serious. And remember that your conduct in bringing the case will be looked at just as closely as the conduct of those you name in the case, so using the RFC as an opportunity for flamewars and personal attacks is going to be self-defeating. Thatcher 15:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Thatcher. You might consider adding this comment in some form to the User Conduct RfC page. Cla68 (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
<gasp> Preparing evidence and logical thoughts before an arbitration case? Wonders will never cease. I think the arbcom (or other regular arbcom people) should be much more pro-active in this area and help the organisation and management of cases - much more so than arbcom clerks do. Of course, ultimately it is up to the parties and others to present the evidence, but a sprawling case wastes everyone's time. Carcharoth (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I think Thatcher has held off posting this directly into the RFAR because to do so would make him ineligible to clerk any arbitration case that comes forward from it. (Feel free to correct me on that if I am wrong, Thatcher.) There are sufficient commenters suggesting an RfC that someone should be willing and able to start up the format, and others can add diffs and so on as things go along. Risker (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Not really, this is content-neutral advice on filing an effective case. To Cla68, I think it would be a bad idea to structure all RFCs this way. Certainly RFCs would benefit from being focused, neither rambling on nor dealing excessively with trivial matters, but I look at the typical RFC as a means to show someone that their conduct is unacceptable in some definable manner but that it is amenable to change and improvement. The prosecutorial model doesn't really apply. Certain of the more complex arbitration case, such as perhaps ID, would benefit from something like a district attorney or crown prosecutor, who in the real world a/ exercises discretion that some complaints are not worth prosecuting, and b/ collates and organizes the evidence to present the most effective case. On Wikipedia that could perhaps be done collaboratively. To Carcharoth, I think the history of the clerks' office will show occasional rumblings in the direction of offering direct assistance to parties, but it has always been controversial, and some people think I have already gone too far, apparently. Thatcher 19:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
That's good advice, Thatcher. People coming to this page should think of it as the where's the beef stage of arbitration. Of course the Committee will look into a dispute before making a decision about whether to accept a case, but our capacity to do so is finite, and it's largely up to the parties who want arbitration to sketch out the boundaries of the dispute for us. Show us the meat of the dispute.
In this request, instead of movements towards a request for comment, or movements towards being sufficiently specific in the request for arbitration, we've seen little meat but an abundance of big, fluffy statements (33 and counting, with another dozen replies to comments) and only today have there been any diffs added. --bainer (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] So, what now?

H2O RFA is over now, with so many dram, backlashes and s*** throwing that I feel ashamed only by reading it. So, the arbs that said they were going to hold this until the RFA was over. What do you say now? Samuel Sol (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homeopathy /Evidence

Would some arbitrator/clerk/etc. be willing to make a scrubbed version of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence? Given the significance of some proposed decisions, it seems a little odd to have so much of the case carried out in secret. Thanks, Gnixon (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] apologies for failing in the template stuff

I've just filed a request - but have singularly failed to correctly fill in the templates, and copy them to the correct places etc. - sincere apologies for any hassle this causes - I just found it very challenging technically to work out which bits to cut, paste, copy, etc. etc. - any assistance from the wonderful clerks (or anyone else!) is hugely appreciated! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I took a stab at it. I labeled it a request to amend, but it might be more accurate to call it an appeal? If someone knows better, please correct me. --InkSplotch (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)