Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/1/1/3): adjusting totals, now 2 accept, 1 decline, 3 recuse, 2 comment
→‎Illicit Drug Interventions: Decline as mathematically impossible
Line 135: Line 135:
*'''Accept'''; this is one of those cases at the boundary of content and behavior where the primary problem is the acrimony ''around'' a content problem. This is partly due to how divisive the fundamental issue is (and thus how frayed tempers can get), and partly due to the weakness of our normal editorial process when faced with uncompromising parties that cannot reach true consensus as a matter of principle.<p>However, I think the driving precedent in this case is more likely to be ''[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names|Ireland article names]]'' than ''[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia|Macedonia]]'' given the stability issue about how the dispute is framed in the first place. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 13:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
*'''Accept'''; this is one of those cases at the boundary of content and behavior where the primary problem is the acrimony ''around'' a content problem. This is partly due to how divisive the fundamental issue is (and thus how frayed tempers can get), and partly due to the weakness of our normal editorial process when faced with uncompromising parties that cannot reach true consensus as a matter of principle.<p>However, I think the driving precedent in this case is more likely to be ''[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names|Ireland article names]]'' than ''[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia|Macedonia]]'' given the stability issue about how the dispute is framed in the first place. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 13:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
*'''Accept '''- MEDCOM is never going to work with half the 'parties' screaming blue murder about being listed as such. Can we give participants some guidelines for submission of evidence - for example, stick to the word limit, any lengthy attempt to convince Arbcom that name X is right/wrong will be removed on sight. Clearly you cannot reach a consensus because this is not an academically neutral topic, people have strong opinions, so focus on what the other chap is DOING that '''breaks our rules''', not on what he is SAYING that offends your sensibilities/religious convictions/politics etc.--[[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 13:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
*'''Accept '''- MEDCOM is never going to work with half the 'parties' screaming blue murder about being listed as such. Can we give participants some guidelines for submission of evidence - for example, stick to the word limit, any lengthy attempt to convince Arbcom that name X is right/wrong will be removed on sight. Clearly you cannot reach a consensus because this is not an academically neutral topic, people have strong opinions, so focus on what the other chap is DOING that '''breaks our rules''', not on what he is SAYING that offends your sensibilities/religious convictions/politics etc.--[[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 13:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

== Illicit Drug Interventions ==
'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Minphie|Minphie]] ([[User talk:Minphie|talk]]) '''at''' 03:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|Minphie}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|Steinberger}}
*{{userlinks|Jmh649}}
*{{userlinks|Ohiostandard}}
*{{userlinks|Dala11a}}
<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dala11a#Arbitration_Request_Lodged]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Steinberger#Arbitration_Request_Lodged]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jmh649#Arbitration_Request_Lodged]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ohiostandard#Arbitration_Request_Lodged]

;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
Despite many thousands of words of civil discussion on three article Talk pages,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Insite#Deleting_of_a_relevant_source][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Insite#Mangham_Evidence_not_WP:UNDUE][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Insite#JGDPP_and_peer-review][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Insite#Changes_to_previous_text_on_EAC_and_Mangham][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Needle-exchange_programme#Opposition_section_NPOV_issues][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Supervised_injection_site#Addiction_psycho-social_rather_than_medical][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Supervised_injection_site#.22Three_of_these_analysts_were_well-published_authors....22_and_other_outsourced_claims][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Supervised_injection_site#This_article_relies_heavily_on_primary_sources][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Supervised_injection_site#Drug_Free_Australia] and recourse to third opinions not involved in the dispute on four separate occasions, mostly favoring the journal articles or related organization [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_91 Entry 24], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_98 Entry 35], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_99 Entry 17], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_66 Entry 4], the issue remains unresolved. Further, in my opinion, mediation is highly unlikely to progress this dispute. I cannot see any other step as sufficient to resolve this issue.

=== Statement by Minphie ===

I believe a dispute which is currently continuing on three Wikipedia pages - [[Insite]], [[Supervised injection site]], [[Needle-exchange programme]] - which each describe various drug harm-reduction interventions, needs to be arbitrated. The dispute, beginning October 2008, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Insite&diff=246613668&oldid=246298142 first cited][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Insite&diff=246722183&oldid=246613668 first reverted] concerns the reliability of the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice as a Wikipedia source and has escalated since November 2010. The information stakes are fairly high, because one of the articles in this journal was cited by the Canadian government as its academic defence for closing Insite, the Vancouver supervised injection site. Another article, cited by the noted EMCDDA ‘Harm Reduction’ Monograph, claims that the journal evidence for the effectiveness of needle exchange programs is inconclusive, as against previous international claims for their success.

The dispute for example has involved the blanking or reversion, on 28 occasions according to my count, of text citing the JGDPP articles on the [[Insite]] page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Insite&action=history] alone, with the dispute most evident from 29 May 2011 on. Blanking of JGDPP text continued even after an e-mail from the journal’s Chief Editor confirmed the journal was indeed peer-reviewed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Insite&diff=416643053&oldid=414415634 here]. The dispute has in some articles then progressed to leaving JGDPP citations on the relevant pages, but tagging them as an ‘unreliable medical source’. Dispute has then continued over whether the issues in the disputed articles are medical or not, then further escalated to whether criticisms from related drug prevention organisations are reliable sources or not, despite third party RS/N input previously affirming one of the organizational sources under dispute. Again, resolution has not been reached despite seeking third opinions via WP:RS/N on the four occasions previously detailed.
The dispute has produced one unproven sock-puppetry allegation[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Marknutley/Archive#16_June_2011] and three complaints for edit-warring, one upheld [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive133#User:Steinberger_reported_by_User:Literaturegeek_.28Result:_blocked_24_hrs.29] and the other two not [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=434657477#User:Minphie_reported_by_User:Jmh649_.28Result:_No_Violation.29][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive133#User:Minphie_reported_by_User:Literaturegeek_.28Result:_Not_blocked_.2F_stale.29].

=== Statement by Steinberger ===
In my view, there is a clear consensus that WP:MEDRS apply to purported science on drug interventions and that articles in Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice or by Drug Free Australia does not meet the requirements set up in the said policy. [[User:Steinberger|Steinberger]] ([[User talk:Steinberger|talk]]) 16:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I obviously concur with others in their assertions that s/he is a POV-pusher and examples of this is the way s/he uses genuinely reliable sources, pick certain facts from them that don't reflect their overall conclusions in order to portray reviews and such as negative towards certain inventions when they are not. Typically s/he also adds information from highly partisan and less reliable sources, giving them equal validity, to elaborate on the findings. Such as these examples from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Insite&action=historysubmit&diff=435543246&oldid=435404678 Insite] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harm_reduction&action=historysubmit&diff=363894078&oldid=363856491#Safe_injection_sites Harm reduction]. [[User:Steinberger|Steinberger]] ([[User talk:Steinberger|talk]]) 16:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by Jmh649(Doc James) ===
I am only tangentially involved in that I do a lot of work making sure Wikipedia references follow [[WP:MEDRS]]. This users edits does not and he is using every means possible to a push a none main stream POV. We have an article on Wikipedia that discusses the JGDPP [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Global_Drug_Policy_and_Practice] which makes clear the scientific communities opinion of its reliability.--[[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 07:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by previously uninvolved Peter Cohen ===
Looking at the edit history of the account which brought this case, they look suspiciously like an SPA which pushes a POV about drug treatment that goes against that which normally appears in the best quality peer-reviewed medical, sociological and social policy journals.--[[User:Peter cohen|Peter cohen]] ([[User talk:Peter cohen|talk]]) 23:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

=== Comment by more or less uninvolved Wnt ===
I should just point out that [[WP:MEDRS]] is a content guideline, ''not'' a policy, giving recommendations about the priority of sources, not forbidding all mention of them. I find that WP:MEDRS fundamentalism can be disruptive, because medical issues are not always best covered by "mainstream" sources - especially those involving herbal or other non-prescribed drugs, which receive relatively little formal scientific attention but exceptional popular interest. A POV that includes only the mainstream is ''not'' neutral. Of course, minority or unscientific points of view should be represented as such where appropriate. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 00:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by involved Ohiostandard ===

It's my opinion that this ought not to have been brought here, for the same reasons articulated by arbitrators who've already commented below. Nevertheless, since I was named as a party to this request, I think it would be disrespectful not to present my view of this conflict. Btw, apologies all around for being rather late to the party on this. I've been on a bit of a wikibreak.

User Minphie's only activity on Wikipedia has been to carry on a single-handed campaign to promote the "war on drugs" views of organizations like the [[Drug Free America Foundation]] that lobbies, directly and via a surprising number of astroturf projects, for much harsher penalties and more vigorous enforcement. That organization is aggressively opposed to needle exchange programs and other harm reduction efforts, which it calls "a tactic to normalize drug use." Because the organization had the same founders, it is often named as the successor to the notorious [[Straight, Incorporated]] that operated an extremely abusive, very long-term residential boot-camp style program for kids who had been discovered to have used drugs.

The so-called [[Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice]] is a captive vehicle for the Drug Free America Foundation. It appears to me to be nothing more than a sophisticated project to artificially promote and lend credibility to its "war on drugs" political agenda. I came to this conclusion after completing something like 20 hours of research about it when I first saw its article come up at AfD. Beyond that initial 20 hours, I've found it necessary to put in considerably ''more'' time to be able to respond intelligently to Minphie's ceaseless attempts to incorporate "research" from this publication into our articles.

In one recent week, for example, I spent another eight or ten hours learning about and investigating citation index databases for academic articles to discover that [[Talk:Supervised_injection_site#JGDPP_still_isn.27t_a_reliable_or_admissible_source | this so-called journal has evidently been cited <u>just twice</u> by legitimate journals since its inception in 2007.]] One of those two citations, at least, was made to strongly criticize the publication as a "marketing device" for the pro-enforcement views of its parent Drug Free America Foundation. ( I don't have access to the second journal that cited it, although I have reason to suspect that it was also cited there for the purpose of unfavorable commentary. ) It appears that almost no one in the published academic community views this as a legitimate scientific journal, with the possible exception of those involved in promoting it.

All of us who contribute to these articles have been extremely patient in trying to answer Minphie's very long and repetitive arguments up until now. But most of us have found it neccessary to spend far too much time responding to his campaign, and I think we've all become pretty weary at this point of his ongoing refusal to accept talk page consensus.

As I've told Minphie before, if the data and corresponding conclusions presented by the Drug Free America Foundation and its Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice are sound, those same conclusions will sooner or later be published in one of the great many legitimate journals devoted to science rather than one set up to promote an extreme political agenda. He's welcome to search for such sources: It's not like there's any lack of legitimate, high-quality journals to choose from in the areas of medicine, addiction, and public health policy. But there's simply no reason he should be allowed to keep scraping the bottom of the publications barrel so persistently to push his POV, nor any reason why he should be allowed to continue defying the strong consensus among contributors to these articles, as he's been doing for literally years, now. &nbsp;–&nbsp;<font face="Cambria">[[User:Ohiostandard|<font color="teal">'''OhioStandard'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Ohiostandard|talk]])</font> 10:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''

=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/7/0/0) ===
* Awaiting statements. Right now, the request does not articulate prior steps in the dispute resolution process have failed to resolve this, which will tend to lead to a closure as premature if not forthcoming. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 04:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
*: There was a [[Talk:Insite#Third_Opinion|3O]] in November 2008 ;-) <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 04:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
*::'''Decline''' in favor of an intermediate DR step such as mediation or an RfC. 3O's and noticeboards are primary DR venues, ArbCom is tertiary. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 15:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
* I also look forward to hearing from the other parties, but I agree with Jclemens that based on what I've seen so far, this dispute may not be ready for arbitration because other steps in the [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] process have not yet been tried. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a weeks-long, highly contentious process, and for that reason we ask that other methods of resolving problems be tried first. In addition, the Arbitration Committee deals primarily with ''misconduct'' by Wikipedia contributors, and not with issues of article content, except perhaps in rare and exceptional cases (such as those involving protracted [[WP:BLP|BLP]] violations), we are not a group of "super-editors" with the authority, or the expertise, to decide what the content of articles should it. I do note that there has been discussion on article talkpages about this disagreement; it would probably be very helpful if one or more uninvolved administrators would help out here, carefully review the situation, and assist the parties moving forward. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 10:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
**'''Decline''' at this time per Jclemens about and Elen of the Roads below. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 15:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
* Has there been any wider community input as to the reliability of this Journal? If not, then that would appear to be the missing step. --[[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 14:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
*:'''Decline'''. All the four times cited above that this journal has come up at [[WP:RS]], there have been questions about its reliability and suitability as a medical source. Arbcom is not going to challenge that decision. All the rest is just your bog-standard edit warring. [[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 14:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
* '''Accept'''. This has gone on long enough. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 04:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
::Given that the community has repeatedly rejected this journal as a MEDRS source, would it not be easier just to block the filing party indefinitely for disruptive editing, given that he is the only one persistently adding it to articles. [[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 15:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
* '''Decline''' in the hope this dispute can be resolved without arbitration, which is often a lengthy and contentious process. This doesn't imply your dispute is unimportant, merely that arbitration isn't the best way to resolve it. Suggest having a look at [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]] - there are several kinds of dispute resolution that could be useful. For the content side of the dispute, given the complexity of the issues, I would suggest the next stage is [[WP:MEDCAB|informal mediation]], and if there are more serious problems you could try either a [[WP:RFC|Request for Comment on content]] or [[WP:MEDCOM|formal mediation]]. For the user conduct dispute, if there are relatively minor concerns you could try [[WP:WQA|Wikiquette alerts]], and if there are more serious conduct problems, I would suggest a [[WP:RFC/USER|Request for Comment on user conduct]]. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 17:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
* '''Decline'''; I don't think this is ripe for the committee, it seems well within the capabilities of normal dispute resolution. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 11:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 12:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''; let's see some earlier steps in [[WP:DR|DR]] first. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 13:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


== User:Δ ==
== User:Δ ==

Revision as of 14:42, 3 August 2011

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Abortion   3 August 2011 {{{votes}}}
User:Δ   16 July 2011 {{{votes}}}
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing Motion (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction none none 29 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration


Abortion

Initiated by Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... at 02:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Note- There is a larger list of parties at the Requests for mediation, however I have added only major contributors.


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Steven Zhang

I am presenting this case to the Arbitration Committee, as I have unfortunately done so in the past after a mediation (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed_Pacifist_2. I don't do this lightly (I hate RFAR) however I feel it's the only way forward in this situation, and in the best interests of the community, as the general sanctions these articles are under have been ineffective. This would encompass all abortion articles, however mainly the Abortion article, and the recently renamed (as a result of the Mediation Cabal case) Support for the legalisation of abortion and Opposition to the legalisation of abortion. It seems to me that while there are still niggly content issues with the articles, the major player is is user conduct. In my opinion as a mediator, the reason things aren't progressing is due to polarised opinions on the matter. This isn't something that can be resolved through discussion and consensus building. I feel that the conduct of all parties needs to be reviewed, and remedies implemented to provide long term stability to the articles. Edit warring has been an issue, with editors doing one revert a day to get around 1RR, so a temporary injunction to address this for the term of this arbitration case should maybe be looked at. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 02:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to comments

@Ohms law, I've only added parties to this case that I noticed contributed a bit to the MedCab, or on talk pages. It's not intended to drag users into the dispute that don't belong in it, and that can be sorted out by the clerks or arbitrators. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 03:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • @NuclearWarfare, the larger issue as I see it here (In regards to the Abortion titles dispute) is contrasted and polarised opinions, not a lack of structure in mediation discussions. As the mediator, I of course am biased in favour of my own handling of the dispute, but am unsure if mediation over the titles again will achieve a desired result. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 04:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @John Vandenburg, I definitely agree that walking away would be the best course of action here, and I do apologise for filing here, but done so only after it was evident that the MedCom case would not be accepted (a significant majority of parties disagree) and that other resolution would be required. Because it seems that soon after the MedCab was closed, discussion continued about titles, and then a MedCom case was filed, that these issues will just go around in circles until resolved. This is the reason I filed the case. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 06:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jclemens, something similar to Macedonia would probably be effective in this instance. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 06:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NuclearWarfare

I have not been involved with the issue of the title of the pro-choice/pro-life articles. Honestly, I think something along the lines of User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Mediation-Arbitration Referrals Subcommittee or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2 is necessary to solve that, as it's getting kind of ridiculous right now.

Steve also mentions the dispute over the lead sentence of Abortion, which I am far more familiar with, as it has wasted hours of my life allowed me to gain invaluable insight in how to find quality reliable sources. Despite the rather ridiculous amounts of edit warring we have seen over the last two months, I think that the editors who have not been pushed away from the article have come to a rough agreement on the article. Hopefully. I don't think review by the Arbitration Committee would hurt a great deal, but neither do I think it's entirely necessary at this time. NW (Talk) 02:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Maybe an admin-mediator with more power than a normal MedCom member or a mediator with significant content experience to help the discussion move along? But I think that would have been more helpful four weeks ago; I don't see a need for one now. Maybe some sort of agreement that one will be appointed in two weeks if the dispute isn't settled by then? NW (Talk) 04:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ohms law

Nevermind.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

My "involvement" in this is limited to providing my opinion during an earlier mediation attempt. Now I'm being dragged into this and attempting to be dragged into the attempt to create a super-mediation case by one of the other participants in the dispute. To say that being named as a party in either is annoying would be an understatement.

Please also be aware of Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Misuse of mediation?, which I posted just prior to becoming aware of this RFAR. Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Steven: that's why everything about this is disruptive. Just a smidgeon of forethought may have avoided my type of objection, but everyone involved in this is so gung ho to start flaming each other that all reason has apparently gone out the window (which speaks volumes about the need for an arbcom case here, with the proper parties, really). All of this simply because I replied to an RFC with my opinion. Just great, people.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Observation by really-glad-I'm-not-involved Floquenbeam

0RR?? Editors would be free to insert something ridiculous into any abortion-related article, and no one could remove it until they get consensus to do so? I understand you may think that 1RR is not working well, but imposing 0RR on everyone editing a large group of articles is destined to fail. You'd be better off just full-protecting the articles for the duration of the case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Abortion articles are already under 1RR. @world: I'm not babbling, a suggestion for 0RR was originally suggested but was later removed, I was responding to that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NYyankees51

I'm not familiar with arbitration, so forgive me if I'm not supposed to make a statement. I filed the request for formal mediation. The fight over the titles has dragged on for six months now ([1] [2] [3]), with three move proposals and an informal mediation. I would like to note that the initial proposal at pro-life resulted in what seemed to be, to me at least, a clear consensus to keep the title of pro-life. Requests were opened again and again by people who favored changing the title. This was highly disruptive; they were pushing the issue until they got the result they wanted. Now here we are. Again, I don't know how arbitration works so I don't know if this is a better or proper solution as opposed to formal mediation. I just want to draw attention to how we got here. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objectivist

I don't especially care about the titles of Wikipedia articles, except where a title can be extraordinarily misleading. "Pro-Life" appears to be such a title (per the definition of "hypocrisy"), and I will now explain why, an argument that so far as I know is generally unknown...it is categorized as "Original Research" here.

Consider a simple "model economy" in which the population and the resources needed to sustain that population are well-matched. And, as in the real economy, there are people who are "middlemen" in terms of converting resources into goods for that population to consume. They operate businesses that hire laborers to do the converting, and they sell the goods, to be able to pay for the labor. Standard stuff.
But what happens if more people are added to that model economy, without simultaneously increasing the available resources? Per the Law of Supply and Demand, there will be increased competition for the available labor slots, which generally means wages would fall. Simultaneously, per that same Law, there will be increased competition for goods, which generally means prices would rise. Does anyone benefit? Certainly! The middlemen who hire labor and sell goods end up with greater sales receipts and lower labor costs, resulting in greater profits. This is actually the fundamental mechanism, the world over, explaining how the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.
Now of course some people will say that there is now an Opportunity for someone to open up new resources to compete with those middlemen. BUT, in the Real World, it is well known that businesses try to stifle competition, and try to lock down resources and create monopolies (witness the diamond cartel), as an alternate way to increase prices and profits. There is no guarantee that the possible Opportunity can actually be implemented. But there is every guarantee, per the Law of Supply and Demand, that if the middlemen can successfully cause the population to increase faster than the supply of resources, they will profit from it, while simultaneously causing laborers to have a tougher time making ends meet. The proof of this is to be found throughout the last half of the 20th Century, in which, at its start, one laborer's income usually sufficed to support a family, and now the incomes of two parents are all-too-often barely enough. The price of ordinary labor has most certainly not kept pace with the price of resources/goods!
Those middlemen can claim to be "pro-life" and oppose abortion, but what they act like is that they are pro-profit-only. They most certainly can directly personally benefit from increased competition for limited labor slots and limited goods. They apparently care nothing about the Quality of Life for all that extra Life they want the economy to include! If they were really pro-life, they would be willing to ensure that the cost of labor was always sufficient to sustain a decent life. Yet many of those same business-oriented "pro-lifers" oppose Minimum Wage Laws!
The Evidence of History is that resource-availability must increase faster than the rate of population increase for the overall Quality of Life of a population to increase. Even though that would naturally mean, per the Law of Supply and Demand, that wages would go up, to attract laborers who have many choices, and prices and profits would go down as goods flooded the markets, and the poor would get richer faster than the rich ... as has actually happened in History when a new resource (e.g., big sections of North America) suddenly became widely accessible for exploitation.
Notice how important it must be for middlemen/businessmen to try to keep secret the wider consequences associated with claiming to be "pro-life". They don't want the foundations of their argument to be revealed as being equivalent to quick-sand, so of course they must automatically deny the validity of (or even try to suppress) any argument that points out the above wider consequences --or any other wider consequences, some of which are even worse for pro-lifers than that one. I've never seen the above argument published in a Reliable Source, yet it seems to me it should be simple and obvious to anyone with a decent background in economics. It should not be original-with-me research!

Getting back to the overall topic of this Request Page, I want to clearly indicate that however it finally closes, the titles of all the appropriate abortion-related articles need to be locked down in such a way that anyone who wants to change them should be directed to some sort of Final Decision page, where it is clearly stated that no other input will be accepted regarding title-changes (unless something truly extraordinary and relevant happens outside of Wikipedia). Thank you! V (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Roscelese

Agree with Floquenbeam and Casliber that 0RR is a terrible idea. Even 1RR cuts with one edge as it heals with the other: it helps cut down on edit wars, but it means that even the most ludicrously POV stuff can't always be reverted. Would it be a good idea to elect a team of respected and experienced editors to help deal with content issues? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@NYyankees51: This isn't a good place to complain that you didn't get the titles you wanted. That discussion is taking place in enough venues as it is. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement Eraserhead1

Unfortunately I think this is the right venue. I looked at my talk page initially and saw the message pointing here first and was about to urge you to decline but I've changed my mind.

Its obvious to anyone who is prepared to take a step back that pro-life and pro-choice have POV issues and that even though the new titles aren't perfect they are better as they meet that. Its also obvious that WP:NPOV takes priority over WP:COMMONNAME and its pretty clear from the extensive data gathered in the mediation cabal case that WP:POVTITLE doesn't apply in this case. Overall Chase me I'm the cavalry made an excellent closing statement on the matter and I am fully satisfied by it.

I honestly don't see what formal mediation can do to improve the decision that has already been made other than waste a huge amount of time. Given that other people seem to continue to want to revisit this I think Arbcom is the right venue. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I think the primary issue here is a refusal to get the point from some of the contributors. I among others have debated the matter extensively at the mediation cabal page and tried to explain why pro-life and pro-choice don't meet the projects policies - there does seem to be quite a bit of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on this matter without suggesting any other possible alternatives other than pro-life from some people here and that does need to be addressed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DeCausa

I think Arbcom involvement is appropriate. I agree with Eraserhead1 and Steven Zhang. I was involved in this debate a few months ago but have largely dropped out, out of despair. There are a handful of ideologically motivated editors that have relentlessly pusued their POV and see the title issue as being about advancing their position rather than an encyclopedic matter. The new Medcom request is the latest example. It's difficult to see how this will ever be resolved with the involvement of these editors. IMHO, some topic bans are needed, and Arbcom is the place to handle that. I don't intend to get back into this issue, but the proposal by Steven Zhang and The Cavalry's determination, were neutral, conformed with policy and, IMHO, had broad acceptance by the less ideologically motivated editors (subject to some relatively minor terminology quibbles). DeCausa (talk) 09:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnVandenberg: "the Medcom request is still in flight...the parties should be given a few days to get back to peaceful work or walk away". This has been going on for months and the ideologically motivated input of certain editors will guarantee it won't be resolved "peacefully". Any view of the track record of this issue over the last 6 months will demonstrate that.
@Jclemens: How Arbcom can help is by taking out of the process the ideologically motivated editors who have disrupted a resolution based on a neutral encyclopedic perspective. DeCausa (talk) 10:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Steven Zhang

Having now noticed the criterion for being named as a party (i.e. being a "major" contributor, with others being left out) I'm puzzled as to why I am a party. I was involved somewhat at the beginning of the year, but largely dropped out. I possibly made 2-4 posts in the MedCab. There are several editors who've made more posts than me who aren't named. Could Steven Zhang clarify please. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LedRush

NYYankees51 is essentially right on all points. What has happened is a group of idealogues has pushed their political agenda for about 8 months now. After failing a few times to get the pro-life article moved, they tried again through a mediation process. Despite the fact that the old titles are about as NPOV as the others, and despite the overwhelming evidence of WP:Commonname, and despite the fact that the current titles are highly inaccurate and unwieldly, many people joined the POV-pushers merely as a way to end the endless debates. That is not how Wikipedia should work. We should not allow a small group of people to circumvent WP procedures and policies to get their way at the expense of a clear and precise encyclopedia. Many, like myself, have become disillusioned with the process and have removed themselves from it.LedRush (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/1/3/2)

  • comment - I agree with Floquenbeam's note about 0RR and agree 1RR a better bet. A question for NW - is there anything else, such as any other motion, that the arbitration committee could pass which would help the situation short of either (a) opening a full case or (b) nothing (given you've mentioned there is a rough consensus happening)? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. Risker (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't doubt that there are user conduct issues all around. I also don't doubt that there are incredibly polarized opinions on the matter. What I also am unsure of is how ArbCom is going to solve a dispute here. I've contributed a few opinions on the naming dispute--should I recuse on that basis? If all of us who've ever touched abortion or associated topics recuse, it will be a might small panel of arbs, I expect. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. The Medcab decision is very recent, and the Medcom request is still in flight. This may need arbitration, which will probably result in a lot of bans and/or topic bans, but the parties should be given a few days to get back to peaceful work or walk away. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse as closing admin on the MEDCAB case. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. –xenotalk 13:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept; this is one of those cases at the boundary of content and behavior where the primary problem is the acrimony around a content problem. This is partly due to how divisive the fundamental issue is (and thus how frayed tempers can get), and partly due to the weakness of our normal editorial process when faced with uncompromising parties that cannot reach true consensus as a matter of principle.

    However, I think the driving precedent in this case is more likely to be Ireland article names than Macedonia given the stability issue about how the dispute is framed in the first place. — Coren (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Accept - MEDCOM is never going to work with half the 'parties' screaming blue murder about being listed as such. Can we give participants some guidelines for submission of evidence - for example, stick to the word limit, any lengthy attempt to convince Arbcom that name X is right/wrong will be removed on sight. Clearly you cannot reach a consensus because this is not an academically neutral topic, people have strong opinions, so focus on what the other chap is DOING that breaks our rules, not on what he is SAYING that offends your sensibilities/religious convictions/politics etc.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Δ

Initiated by MickMacNee (talk) at 15:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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

Statement by MickMacNee

I'm filing this request firstly for the reasons outlined in this post, and the further diffs it refers to, which showed Delta still in these last months has a persistent habit of making personal attacks and of general incivility which violate even the basic policies, let alone his long standing probation, and that the admin corps is largely failing to deal with this in the manner expected, and certainly failing to give the people he attacks any protection or assurance it won't be repeated. Secondly, I'm filing due to the fact that his response to the committee's recent Motion about him was to maintain his state of complete denial, and even after that finding, he continues to dismiss legitimate complaints with his editting which relate to his other restrictions to do with due care and attention. He feels so bold even after this formal reminder that he has no problem dismissing even an admin who was so warning him, as a harasser and stalker [4][5]. The future likelihood of such complaints reaching resolution in normal channels is thus still minimal, as the committee saw in the run up to the motion. His poor behaviour which so often rises to open contempt and defiance, his long standing personal prejudices, and his unshakeable belief in the virtue of his own conduct & standard of work, are all completely unchanged by this motion, as aptly demonstrated by his continuance of NFCC enforcement edits even after the part of the motion banning him from such had reached a majority. This is solely a behavioural issue which has barely anything to do with NFCC, and it can, and clearly will, be taken into future areas of interest given the topic ban, as it has been in the past.

If the committee dismisses this request, there is no doubt in my mind that you will be forced to make further motions within a year, which will simply be more firefighting without addressing root causes or enabling factors. There were several editors considering filing a full case prior to that motion, and I doubt they have been assuaged by it. I haven't sought any co-signers for this case, but I'm sure they could be found if the committee wants to see some and I'm given leave to solicit them, in the knowledge of what attacks doing so would invite without such leave. In terms of parties, I see this as a community wide dispute in which I would expect community level findings of fact & remedies on anyone except Delta, but for specimen charges I've named admins Slackr, Fastily & Future Perfect at Sunrise as parties as admins whose failures had a direct impact in the first incidents mentioned. I've also named admin Black Kite and user Hammersoft as parties, as their comments as regards Delta have recently crossed the line from mere civil dissent, to outright incivil bad faith hostility [6][7][8][9][10], which adds to the tendency for all discussions about Delta to now derail into drama without any resolution. I expect both those categories could grow if other incidents are examined in detail in a case. MickMacNee (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft. You have recently classed me as one of the Delta "hate squad", you have put any and all of my posts on 'permanent ignore' until now, and before that you invoked your stupid 'Hammersoft's Law' more times than I can remember whenever I've tried to interact with you, even though plenty of people have told you it's a childish and counter-productive way to conduct yourself. You can consider me skipping to the venue of last resort as a direct consequence of that outlook tbh. And even if it wasn't me, I've seen how you generally receive any critical feedback (example) so my advice to anyone if they have a complaint with you would be to simply give you a single chance to respond, then when the inevitable comes, go straight to the involuntary venues. As for the rest: no, so what, no, no, yes, yes. MickMacNee (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Fut Purf, as per the linked diffs, your involvement relates first to your hatting of the AE request on Delta as 'wikihouding', thereby closing off yet another editor's recent attempt to resolve a dispute by having Delta held to the standards already set out in previous cases using the ordinary channels, meaning his behaviour was allowed to continue until it got so bad a further Motion was necessary, and secondly, the fact that on a report to ANI of a clear cut personal attack by Delta on me, your chosen way of responding to that was to simply repeat the attack. I'll repeat, you are a sample party, I don't by any means allege you are the worst offender, you are simply unfortunate in that your egregarious actions stood out to me when thinking about filing. The time has long since passed that the few admins who are actively not helping this dispute get resolved are identified, and if necessary any general findings and remedies that may arise are given some specific contexts using them, to assist admins in future as regards what is and is not expected from them in cases like this. MickMacNee (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem. The scope as far as I'm concerned is Delta's ongoing behaviour and related issues of how its being handled by normal processes. NFCC is related only insofar as how its being used to divert from that, such as the continual false claims that the only people who criticise Delta are people who want to change/ignore that policy, or this idea that arbcom are out to destroy the Free Encyclopoedia, and all the other related histrionic and hateful bullshit that has somehow become normality from some people as a response when discussing this guy in normal channels. As such, we are well past WQA/RFC. Can you seriously imagine that sort of thing succeeding when you have opinions like that of Roux in here starting to creep into acceptance? I highlighted that in the filing as one of the precise admin failures necessitating this, so I'm surprised to see it emerge as an argument for not having it. MickMacNee (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Fastily. Similarly with Future Perfect, your involvement is detailed in the filing and is made also as an egregarious sample party, namely due to your closure of the AN3 report as no action where Delta had restored a personal attack 4 times in rapid succession, apparently based on the consensus and your opinion that he was not making "innappropriate edits", both of which were questioned, and which nullifed an independently made block for the same, on mere procedural grounds, with the promised further discussion failing to materialise, leading us down the path of inaction which eventually led to the Motion. MickMacNee (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Slackr. You're involved on the same terms as Fastily & Future Perfect, I don't think I could have put that any clearer no? I am frankly surprised there are so many admins on this site who seem to not be able to follow wikilinks, and/or simply don't remember the admin actions they take or cannot recall them when they are called to account. Maybe you guys are just spreading yourselves too thinly to practice due care and attention? It's almost as surprising as the way the definition of 'simple disagreement' seems to have changed in here too. MickMacNee (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@The concept of a merge - (beurocratic word limit strikes again - see diff for what was here.)
@BorisG. Delta was already under restrictions before the Motion, and just this past month or so someone tried AE as a venue for reporting violations of them - after several editors had made their case, and Delta had lobbed some personal attacks in response, the whole lot was simply shut down as 'wikihounding' by one of the admins named as a party here, who is claiming he has no idea why he's considered a party. It's pointless even pretending that this is a viable option any more, any kind of debatable violation will likely get the same treatment as well as more of the same diversion and evasion, and the only kind of obvious violation would be if he just started making NFCC edits again or made 50,000 edits in a minute or went and called Jimbo a total c-word. For such obvious violations, an AE case is hardly warranted, you would hope. Although even then, you start to wonder if anyone would do anything without an AE report being filed. MickMacNee (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted in light of some comments, that Delta's view post-motion anger period is completely unchanged. All of his opinions on the whos/whys/wherefores of his situation are proveably wrong, the claims aren't even remotely true even if you put a favourable pro-Delta slant on the actual facts, as the evidence that would come up in a case would easily show. Seriously, when is he ever going to be called to account for calling these fantasies a reality? I don't know what the committee's feelings are, but I for one do not want to see the NFCC ripped up, I do not spend more time on the drama boards than article space (for direct comparison to Delta, I have 10,000+ article edits, all unique and with no batch runs, all unaided by scripts, all with full individual edit summaries, all throughly checked and verified for the possiblity of errors, and with not a single one causing me to be sanctioned or topic banned by the committee), I have never stalked or harassed or bullied Delta except in his own ludicrous definition of such behaviours (which do not meet either the real world or even the Wiki-definition of such), and I do not criticize his edits or style just because he works in NFCC. He cannot, no, he will not, ever do anything to prove any of these claims. And tbh, why should he have to if the committee rejects this case? He's happy to simply set himself up as a perma-victim and repeat them into eternity, safe in the knowledge that there's no comeback likely from an indifferent administration, and that it's proveably helpful to throw this sort of shit into the fan whenever anyone tries to have his conduct examined and controlled in the way the committe has tried to remind admins that its supposed to. MickMacNee (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Chase. Delta (& Hammersoft) have said in the past, and still do after the motion [11], that they actually believe that straight removal as enforcement, whatever the cause & no matter how trivial (and there are several trivial ways NFCC can be violated), is a valid way of teaching users about how to use NFC properly. I think it's obvious to other established editors that a) that's not what we do for any other policy, b) the success of that as a strategy relies on the remover having impeccable communication skills and empathy from then on, which is not the case for either of those two, as has been pointed out to both many times by many users. As a basic strategy, it also has the blatant flaw that it's not a given that the upoader is even the source of the fault, or is even still around. And even when it does catch someone's eye, if this is the strategy, you have to wonder why edit warring, templating and threats have been such a central feature of what often happens next. MickMacNee (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@committee. As an example of my scepticism as to how Delta's ongoing issues need to be rolled up into my case given they don't relate to me in any way, or why he needs to be given time to show he has taken on board the reminder of the Motion given his open rejection of it and ongoing behaviour right now, I submit the following sequence:
(Delta's current chosen work seems to be script driven batch editting making various trivial changes, the declared scope of which is a mystery to me, but seems to at least involve anything from MoS edits, ref formatting, dead link highlighting, redirected file renaming, all at once, all simply described in the edit summary as "cleanup".)
Yesterday he arrived at 2006–07 UEFA Champions League
He applies the cleanup
In this case it constituted a packaging of a deadlink rescue with some table markup changes
User:PeeJay2K3 reverted shortly after, with the summary how is that a cleanup?
9 hours later, Delta returns to revert that revert, with the edit summary "Please do not blindly revert my edits" [12]
3 minutes after the 2nd revert, Delta posts to PeeJay2K3's talk page, the following: "Question" - "Why did you revert my edit?" [13]
PeeJay2K3 gives no response, but returns to make a partial revert, leaving the deadlink change, but re-reverting the table changes, with the summary "it was hardly a blind revert" [14]
Now, it should be acknowledged that PeeJay2K3 is acting as bad as Delta in this case, and he would be the first to admit I am no friend of his because of it, but he at least has not in the past called me his stalker or harasser for merely pointing it out. Incivility yes, but not straight up personal attacks like that. PeeJay2K3 also is under no active sanctions to not do it, yet, AFAIK. So, I'm just interested to hear from the committee as to whether this shows the reminder was taken on board by Delta, and that he is showing post-Motion that he can still edit productively outside NFCC, and that he is not likely to trigger or at least be an equal party to disputes in other areas due to his style of communication or due to the kind of work he chooses to do and how he chooses to do it. As we see, incidents like this are not being proactively monitored for by the admins you formally reminded either, it's passed them by completely, or they saw it and just cannot be bothered, for obvious reasons. And I have no doubt that if incidents like this were reported to avenues like WQA or ANI, it would result in nothing but what has gone before many times also, and certainly no change in the future behaviour of Delta. Similarly if this incident was reported to AN3, I have no doubt we would see another failure like that of Slackr's or Fastily's, who will ignore it simply because he hasn't breached the 3 revert allowance, sorry, 'limit', in this case. Granted, this is a minor incident, and if it weren't for this request it's something which I wouldn't nowadays even bother highlighting any more such is the hopeless apathy and unchecked hatred that surrounds all attempts to have any specific Delta incident examined objectively and neutrally nowadays. Nonetheless, it very definitley falls under the restrictions, and inaction only leads one way with this user - bolder and more serious violations, ending in wide ranging disputes and motions like that of last week, for which you get the dog's abuse for, being the NFCC denying stalkers that you are, apparently. There's certainly nothing about this minor incident that hasn't been discovered or ruled on in the past, so why are we contemplating going through all this again, and again, and again, or worse, pretending it's got anything to do with me? MickMacNee (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Xeno. That would stil put any enforcing admin in the unenviable position of enforcing 'MickMacNee' remedies on Delta, even though I had nothing to do with the behaviours and violations that led to them being placed. I seriously doubt that is going to have a calming effect on that situation given his deeply held paranoid delusions about my alleged part in his downfall, and frankly, as recent discussions about Delta have shown, there are too many gullible and/or stupid people on this site who would really get confused if they were told I had nothing to do with it. And it's not a stretch to think Delta would try to use the name to his advantage, to try and claim that I was having some part in the next phase of the "harassment" against him, should there ever be an admin brave enough to enforce such remedies. MickMacNee (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

statement by largely uninvolved roux

Decline this please. If for no other reason than the savage irony--or breathless lack of self-awareness--of MMN complaining about someone else's incivility and personal attacks. → ROUX ₪ 16:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

statement by uninvolved jtrainor

I urge the committee to accept this and thoroughly examine the issues. The community has become too polarized over the issue and any community discussion on the topic inevitably ends up spanning pages and pages and ending in almost complete deadlock. As I said previously this was going to come to Arbcom sooner or later anyways, so we might as well take care of it and settle things once and for all.

It is likely that if this case is declined, Betacommand/Delta's supporters will view it as 'vindication' and dealing with him will become even more difficult. Jtrainor (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SirFozzie, all evidence pertaining to Betacommand/Delta in the MMM case was struck as it was all contributed by Chester Merkel, who has since been banned as a sock. In any case he is not a party to that case. Jtrainor (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hammersoft

You want to take Δ to arbitration because he continued to make NFCC edits until the motion was enacted? Please note that he didn't make any NFCC enforcement edits following enactment of the motion. Or maybe you want to take him to arbitration because he's not happy about his topic ban? What, you expect him to be HAPPY about it? Wow. You want to take me and a whole slew of other parties beyond Δ to arbitration without attempting any other form of dispute resolution with regards to them? You want to take me to arbitration because I find fault with ArbCom's decision? You want to take me to arbitration because of a prediction of the future I made? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

Merge and redirect to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Evidence. I would also ask that my name be removed from the case, as I do not consider myself an involved party, unless disagreeing with ArbCom is now a hanging offence. I certainly will not be participating in any way. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Beyond My Ken

  1. MMN has not presented any facts worthy of opening a full arbitration case, and his request is precipitous.
  2. I agree entirely with Roux's statement, the irony is palpable
  3. Hammersoft's analysis seems to me to be right on point. If a new equilibrium is to come about, Delta needs to be given some leeway to vent, since his primary area of work has been taken away from him. After some time has passed, if Delta has not calmed down andedits disruptively, this issue can be revisited.
  4. If the committee feels that it needs to deal with this in case form, Black Kite's suggestion is an excellent one, since MMN's case is still open, and Delta is a named party in that case
  5. However, I urge the committee to reject this request, and allow time for normal adminstrative action to deal with any possible infractions of the topic ban by Delta. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-statement by Fut.Perf.

I don't consider myself a party to this case, as long as no concrete statements about my alleged involvement have been brought forward, and I ask clerks to remove my name from the list in the absence of such. In the unlikely event that input from me should be needed here, I'm afraid I'll be away for most of the next two weeks. – Apart from that: concur with Hammersoft and Roux. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved admin Rich Farmbrough

Community resolution of this dispute, intimately tied together with the NFCC issues (which was bounced by an ARBCOM motion - in which at least one involved ARBCOM member participated, on the face of things) has not been exhausted. Rich Farmbrough, 20:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Masem

It is very difficult to judge the severity of this request as numerous factors are conflicting: several recent AN/ANI threads, the recent ArbCom motion, and MMN's current own open case. MMN's summary is based on his own personal interactions and dissatisfaction with how others have perceived what MMN considers personal attacks, normally which would have been taken to other DRs first like WQA or RFC/U, so immediately sending this to ArbCom seems too premature. But again, numerous recent discussions make the actual matter at hand difficult to understand. Is it Delta's general behavior towards any of his edits? Is it the whole way NFCC editors behavior? Is it the treatment of NFCC by the body as a large? Is it the lack of anyone willing to step forward to block Delta based on such claims? I think a clear statement of the case extent needs to be stated before it can be resolved.

That said, if the case is strictly focused on Delta's behavior, the recent block by ArbCom would need to be reviewed within this case. The end result of the case may be the continuation of that motion, but I would propose that a possible (not necessarily likely) outcome is that the motion may have been inappropriate in light of the larger case. The motion should not be seen set in stone with a new case opened this close to the motion itself which seemed to pass without significant input from non-AC editors. --MASEM (t) 20:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@MMN: Based on the statement you're making that this is about Delta's behavior and does not involve anyone else outside of supporting Delta's behavior, this is absolutely the wrong step then to proceed: there's no secret that there's a bit of bod blood between you and Delta, and that's being addressed as your case. Even without that, specific addressing of Delta's behavior should be over at WQA or RFC/U than an immediate jump to ArbCom. This case should be rejected, or as noted, elements considered as part of MMN's case. --MASEM (t) 11:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fastily

Like Fut.Perf. above, I do not consider myself an involved party. I ask that a clerk remove my name from this case accordingly. Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 20:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wikidemon

Facepalm Facepalm

Statement by Heim

To Fozzie, and anyone else interested in coupling this with the MMN case: Wouldn't that be likely to delay the decision in the MMN case? I really think that case needs a resolution sooner, not later. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by slakr

Ermm... I'm an "involved party?" Please enlighten me as to why, as I'm completely in the dark here. --slakr\ talk / 05:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and as per the other above statements, please also remove my name from the list if there's no good reason for me to be here. :P Thanks =) --slakr\ talk / 05:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cometcaster

I urge the ArbCom to reject this case. This is nothing but MickMacNee pursuing his vendetta against Delta. --cc 09:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LessHeard vanU

While it may be a bit too early to accept this case, I suggest that it is not declined outright and nor is it merged with the MMN case; perhaps it should be held as "pending" or similar. I am against a flat decline because I fear that it would feed delta's "confirmation bias", that a declined case would be taken as evidence that there is no issue with his post motion conduct and indeed he is at liberty to test the boundaries of what he may be permitted. This suggestion is based upon my observations of past restriction "gaming" (remember how compliance with NFCC allowed Betacommand to disregard community based restrictions, according to him? There is history here.) Keeping the door open to a full case may persuade delta to comply with the recent restrictions.
I further suggest that the case is not merged with the MMN case since it is not a case of delta vs. Mick, but of delta and his supporters disruption to the general community. If (and I think it will be when) a case is accepted I shall be providing evidence that the actions of User:Hammersoft and others (regardless of their undoubted good faith, etc.) has "enabled" delta to ignore legitimate and widespread concerns regarding his editing and conduct, to continue not to modify his behaviour, and thus were and are the cause of continued disruption to the project. There is some evidence of this habit of directing their energies toward the complainent and not the issues raised in some of the Statements above, for instance. Some editors who may be party to a delta orientated case may not be so - at least to the point of evidence and FoF's - in the MickMacNee case, and thus the cases should be held separately.
I think there should be a case, but perhaps in the near future rather than now - delta may usefully be given time to provide the rope or negate the need for one depending on their reactions. Perhaps there is a basis for a provision acceptance upon further examples of delta "not getting" the recent sanctions? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved BorisG

I suggest declining this case. If Delta violates the restriction imposed by the recent motion, he can be easily sanctioned (blocked) at AE. - BorisG (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC) @MMN: NFCC has been handled by Motion, and as you yourself admit, will lead to further sanctions if downright violated. Incivility can be handled within the current ArbCom case. Although it does not name all the parties you suggested, they will surely get note of any sanction (or lack thereof) imposed on Delta as a result . - BorisG (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by largely uninvolved Georgewilliamherbert

As a general observation - a large number of people on both sides of the recent dispute and motion were highly upset, and subsets of those on both sides were uncivil and confrontational beyond normal community standards. I think that everyone who wasn't being incensed was aware of the degree of hostility. I think that everyone who wasn't incensed was balancing intervening on the abuse with the repercussions that intervening would have had - civility warnings or blocks would undoubtedly have been perceived as partisan, even if handed out equally to both sides.

With that said - this is getting stale at this point, and if it starts to heat up it's not constructive to make a new case, in the sense of reducing community tensions etc.

If the problem has not gone away then a short term interaction ban on those seen to be continuing to attack each other seems the lightest touch solution to balance calming down the individual conflicts and not exacerbate the community writ large. A motion for that would seem to be the quickest most painless solution, if anything needs to be done. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by semi-involved Hasteur

I implore the committee, after their their recent passage of a motion, to decline this motion With Prejudice. Delta was just recently put through the short version of a ArbCom case for the NFCC work. I would assume that ArbCom does take up the principle of Double jeopardy when considering cases. The significant portion of complaint is Delta's work prior to the motion being instigated. The fact that this case request comes relatively quickly after the previous motion demonstrates a significant facination with Delta on the part of MMN. Hasteur (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Rocksanddirt

I agree with Hasteur to a point. This does not need a case and should be declined. delta needed a block as an enforcement of existing restrictions. MMN may or may not have needed a block for garden variety editwarring. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved HominidMachinae

I have several points to add which may or may not involve the above statements. I would absolutely welcome a statement from the arbcom regarding expectations of good faith assumptions and directions to administrators regarding contentious areas. In one instance I remember I was a totally uninvolved user who stepped in when I saw what I thought to be an innocent user being ganged up on by multiple users and administrators. As a result I was accused of being a sockpuppet (I most emphatically am not) accused of bias and many other things, untrue, simply because I sided with an unpopular user. I hope a case resulting from this can address these issues and issue an absolute requirement regarding good faith and civility and conversely an absolute requirement regarding abusive users. It is a shocking and distressing thing to see a user you feel is being unfairly targeted and suddenly be called a sockpuppet merely for insisting on proper procedure. The most distressing and dis-encouraging thing that can happen to you on-wiki is to have a legitimate grievance that is buried because the malfeasor has admin support. There needs to be standards here. As I see it one of the largest issues with Delta is that he has absolute admin support as he attempts to enforce what he sees as absolute wiki standards. This is more than an issue with Delta, what is allowable when strong (potentially legalistic) standards are involved. Are ANY standards beyond consensus standards? Should free content discussions be placed beyond the realm of consensus? Even if US legal standards are involved? Should admins be heald to higher standards? Are any users beyond the assumption of good faith? all that has to be answered hereHominidMachinae (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Normally this would be declined, but several arbitrators have asked for hold for the time being. This request will be kept until further notice. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 09:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/8/1/1)

  • Comment: Hypothetically, I am on break right now; however, this situation appears to be worsening rather than settling after the recent motion. Awaiting further statements, but at this point I am inclined to accept and to look at the behaviour of all parties specific to the NFCC issue. Risker (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept - I don't think the MMN case will be able to address all of the issues raised here, which involve several other editors besides Delta/Betacommand. Risker (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Enormous WP:POINT and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issues here. Cool Hand Luke 16:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, try to fold it in to MMN. I will support reopening it if the problem persists after the closing of that case. Cool Hand Luke 15:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hold. It seems increasingly unlikely to me that this will be addressed in the MMN case. I would like to consider taking it after that case closes, as Casliber suggests. Cool Hand Luke 03:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Like Risker, I'm trying to be inactive right now.. but really guys? REALLY? Not 48 hours after we posted a motion in this area, and now a request for a full case? Can't we all just get along? I know one of the core issues (MMN and Delta) was being looked at in the MMN case, can't it be handled there? SirFozzie (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chester's evidence might have been struck, but speaking as one of the case drafters (even if the real world has kept me out), A) That shouldn't stop anyone from posting evidence in that area and B) I know in the preliminary discussions I had with Kirill before the real world hit me (hard), that it was one of the areas we were looking at. SirFozzie (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Formally Declining a seperate case. This should be handled as part of the MMN case. (and noting I'll be inactive if a case is opened until I say otherwise) SirFozzie (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waiting on this one. I would really rather this settle itself, but if the situation continues to persist I don't see what other options there are. The community has failed spectacularly in resolving this thus far. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline for now. Nothing seems to have blown up in the interim and I think getting existing issues out of the way on our end would be helpful as well. If the motion doesn't prove sufficient... well, we'll find out in short order, won't we? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept While David Fuchs' sentiments are well placed, I am not optimistic that such a community-based solution is forthcoming. If we open the case and it proves to be unnecessary, it can be closed by motion. Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per SirFozzie. At the moment, we still have the MickMacNee case open, where I think we can review the issues raised here. However, after the MickMacNee case is closed, and if the recently enacted topic ban for Δ is perceived to be unsatisfactory, then it would make sense to open a new case. PhilKnight (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per Phil and SirFozzie. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, for a while, at least. This is simply too soon after the motion, and I want to see if Delta (and Hammersoft) changes his conduct. However, my patience with Delta et al. is running extremely thin. Delta and his supporters are too focussed on taking the easy way out by 'enforcing' the letter of policy, rather than following it themselves, or teaching others how to do so. I see in some of Hammersoft's recent contributions the amazing speed of one edit every two seconds - and I feel the need to remind people that this is not a race. Let me be quite clear about my personal opinion here: policies and board resolutions are to be followed over being 'enforced', and time is much better spent teaching people how to follow said rules than by acting as an 'enforcer' against those who inadvertently break them. The project needs more teachers and more content contributors, rather than enforcers. If we all enforced policy as hard as is being done here, new editors would be chased off entirely, and I daresay there'd be no editors left at all: just enforcers endlessly enforcing. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My inclination is to decline at this time, in the hopes that things will adjust themselves in light of the recently adopted motion—but with a realistic understanding that the needed adjustment does not seem to be happening, and with a caveat that I would be willing to consider a new request in 15 days if the issues persist. Refraining from casting a final vote temporarily to gauge reactions to this suggestion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline in light of the motion recently adopted, as well as the additional finding and remedy being adopted against Δ in the MickMacNee case. I refer all concerned to my comments in that case, and I again implore everyone on all sides of NFCC issues to review and try their best to abide by the principles we articulated in the Betacommand 2 case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline; any evidence or proposals can be submitted to the ongoing case where Δ is a named party. –xenotalk 14:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold (decline) until the MMN case is closing and we get an idea of if things are covered adequately there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline: being addressed in another case.  Roger Davies talk 06:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. --John Vandenberg (chat) 03:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=442851606"