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
Brianboulton (talk | contribs)
100,115 edits
Line 342: Line 342:
*Awaiting further statements from the principally involved editors. Agreed that we have no jurisdiction over the process ''per se'', and if we do decide to take a case, it will focus only on conduct. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 18:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
*Awaiting further statements from the principally involved editors. Agreed that we have no jurisdiction over the process ''per se'', and if we do decide to take a case, it will focus only on conduct. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 18:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
*Awaiting further statements, preferably keeping the [[WP:AGF|bad faith]] in check. Per Courcelles I'd be interested to know if the dark mutterings about Raul have any validity - but put up or shut up please, don't just make riddling hints. Equally, just pointing to the past history of the individual behind the Br'er Rabbit account gets no one any farther. Show evidence of actual disruption now. And if this is arising out of frustration with the TFA process, then be honest about that too. {{Unsigned|Elen of the Roads|18:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)}}
*Awaiting further statements, preferably keeping the [[WP:AGF|bad faith]] in check. Per Courcelles I'd be interested to know if the dark mutterings about Raul have any validity - but put up or shut up please, don't just make riddling hints. Equally, just pointing to the past history of the individual behind the Br'er Rabbit account gets no one any farther. Show evidence of actual disruption now. And if this is arising out of frustration with the TFA process, then be honest about that too. {{Unsigned|Elen of the Roads|18:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)}}
::Awaiting statement from Raul, but it appears that this arises from frustration about the timing of setting up Today's Featured Articles, compounded by generally poor relations between two of the parties. It seems to me that scheduling TFA is a simpler 'press office' type function, separate from the more detailed and technical work involved in making sure an article is fit for the main page, and the community should be able to deal with the problem if the 'press officer' is having difficulties. While a motion of the 'Raul and Br'er Rabbit should not behave like egits towards each other" type could be considered, do we really need something so egg-sucky? [[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 22:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
*'''Recuse''' as to Br'er Rabbit in light of recent negative interactions between me and this editor. '''Decline''' as to all other issues. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 19:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
*'''Recuse''' as to Br'er Rabbit in light of recent negative interactions between me and this editor. '''Decline''' as to all other issues. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 19:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment now, leaning toward acceptance''' - The interactions and conduct at the heart of this request have been festering for almost half a year, and have had a ripple effect through the project. I have not to this point seen a clear enough summary of relevant facts to unreservedly accept a case; however, only two of the identified parties (and none of the key parties) have commented at this point. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 19:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment now, leaning toward acceptance''' - The interactions and conduct at the heart of this request have been festering for almost half a year, and have had a ripple effect through the project. I have not to this point seen a clear enough summary of relevant facts to unreservedly accept a case; however, only two of the identified parties (and none of the key parties) have commented at this point. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 19:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:36, 18 August 2012

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy   17 August 2012 {{{votes}}}
Featured article process   17 August 2012 {{{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 none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction none none 25 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.


Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy

Initiated by Casprings (talk) at 21:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Link 1 Talk page. Includes a RfC request.
  • Link 2 Here IP editor declines to participate in DRN process

Statement by Casprings

I will argue that the IP editor is trying to place WP:POV into the article. The subject of this request is the background section but I feel his edits on the war on women show the same intent. Most of my argument centers on WP:UNDUE . Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. The IP, continues to try to take the wording of the article to place undue weight on certain aspects. While I will use other WP policies to make the argument, I think in the end, it adds up to a strong effort to put WP:POV. These comments are made off a comparison of these the current version and this version.

First, this version


Sandra Fluke, then a 30-year-old law student at Georgetown, was invited by Democrats to speak at a hearing by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the new Administration rules on Conscience Clause exceptions in health care.[1] The exception applies to church organizations themselves, but not to affiliated nonprofit corporations, like hospitals, that do not rely primarily on members of the faith as employees.[2] In addition, another exception was created for religious institutions in which an employee can seek birth control directly from the insurance company instead of the religious based nonprofit.[3] Democrats requested the committee add Sandra Fluke to the first panel, which was composed of clergy and theologians. Committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-California) refused, stating that Fluke lacked expertise, was not member of the clergy, and her name was not submitted in time.[1][4] Democratic members criticized the decision not to include Fluke since it left that panel with only male members,[5] when the hearing covered contraception coverage.[6]

  1. ^ a b McCarthy, Meghan (March 4, 2012). "How Contraception Became A Train Wreck For Republicans". National Journal. Retrieved March 13, 2012.
  2. ^ "Contraception and Insurance Coverage (Religious Exemption Debate)". THe New York Times. Retrieved 16 July 2012.
  3. ^ Obama Birth Control Mandate Divides Democrats
  4. ^ Shine, Tom (February 16, 2012). "Rep. Darrell Issa Bars Minority Witness, a Woman, on Contraception". ABC News.
  5. ^ O’Keefe, Ed (March 28, 2012). "'Where are the women?' dispute settled. Kind of". The Washington Post.
  6. ^ "Pelosi aims to draw contrast with GOP on contraception policy". CNN (February 23, 2012). Retrieved March 17, 2012.

Versus

On February 16, 2012, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee convened a hearing on objections to the new Administration rules on Conscience Clause exceptions in health care.[1] Democrats requested the committee add Sandra Fluke, then a 30-year-old law student at Georgetown, to the first panel, which was composed of clergy and theologians.[2] Committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-California) refused, stating that Fluke lacked expertise, was not member of the clergy, and her name was not submitted in time.[1][3] Democratic members criticized the decision not to include Fluke since it left that panel with only male members,[4] though prominent women academics were witnesses on the second panel, when the hearing covered contraception coverage.[5]


Reading the second edit by the IP editor, there is some clear examples of WP:UNDUE. The hearing received press coverage (as shown on the attached source and others) because it had no females and the hearing dealt with contraception and birth control. In the last sentence the IP editor is constructing an argument. He/she is making a point and putting WP:UNDUE weight on a hearing that received little WP:Notability. The event received media coverage because of the morning session. Bring up the later hearing and with the current wording is another means to provide WP:UNDUE Moreover, the exclusion of what the administrations policy actually is on the subject leaves out an important fact. Here the IP is again trying to remove WP:BALANCE from the article by removing a relavent fact.

I have taken several steps in order to enter into a productive conversation with the IP editor. DRN, the talk page, and a RfC were used. However, as of yet, there is no consensus. I requested this to prevent further edit Waring.

Statement by Ego White Tray

I have never edited this article and made a single comment on the talk page. If this is accepted, I fully expect to be dropped from the case, and frankly, I don't really care which version the article ends up with. If you want uninvolved third-party opinions on things, how about not dragging them into your arbitration cases, huh? I hope that, if accepted, Casprings is censured for listing an editor who was barely involved into an arbitration case, but I don't think this case should be accepted. Ego White Tray (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hoary

I can't say I've never edited this article, but it's not on my watchlist and my name doesn't appear within the lists of the 500 most recent edits to it and its talk page. So I hardly think I'm an "involved party". (I was involved in Sandra Fluke and its AfDs, during which experience I was greatly impressed by the apparently inexhaustible energy of 209.6.69.227, also listed above. I see now that his energy continues; this comes as no surprise.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Adavidb

I believe these same two versions were proposed on the article's talk page, to which I provided my input. In response there, Casprings acknowledged and agreed with my first point about background sentences not changing "undue weight", and retained an opinion that the background information was needed for balance. Casprings and 209.6.69.227 continued some discussion back and forth, agreeing on a need for neutrality, though not what would constitute such. I see that five arbitrators have already declined to hear this matter here, believing other means of resolution remain available. The article's talk page discussion has not been productive for these two editors to reach an agreement, leaving alternatives from a list linked below by AGK. —ADavidB 09:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Party 5}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0)

  • Decline because other venues of dispute-resolution will be sufficient. AGK [•] 00:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per AGK, an arbitration case, given the timescale of one, would actively be detrimental here. Courcelles 00:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per AGK, and as this seems to primarily be a content dispute. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, as per my colleagues. A less drastic form of dispute resolution should be tried. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline clearly premature. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per comments above. I know this dispute is important to those involved, but much simpler dispute-resolution methods should suffice to resolve it. If a clerk or an uninvolved administrator could assist the parties toward the proper pages, it would be appreciated. I also agree that several of the editors listed should not have been named as parties to the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article process

Initiated by Rschen7754 at 08:56, 17 August 2012 (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 Rschen7754

I am peripherally involved in this, as I have kept an eye on the discussions and participated as a road editor who has written two featured articles and who has a stake in the success of the featured articles program. However, I think that the entire site benefits from the success of the featured articles program, and there are some serious allegations going both ways with this highly complex issue, spanning back at least until January, and some of the socking/multiple account issues even further.

Here are some of the allegations:

  • Bid to install Wehwalt as FAC director ([1])
  • Harrassment by Rlevse (now PumpkinSky) / Br'er Rabbit ([2] and above diff)
  • Snarky remarks by Br'er Rabbit([3])
  • Raul abused his powers by protecting WP:TFA/R when INVOLVED ([4])
  • Raul serving as dictator without community input([5])
  • Raul has a conflict of interest in the situation ([6])

My opinion: Sandy started a post on WT:FAC in January suggesting ways to change and update the FAC process. However, editors used this to criticize the FA process and some attacked Raul and Sandy because of past grudges. It was later discovered during the RFC that followed that PumpkinSky, who took part, was really Rlevse. Sandy decided to resign after facing all this pressure (just like Karanacs (talk · contribs)). Jack Merridew plays in somewhere; apparently there is a backstory I do not know. But what made things even worse was Raul and Sandy largely acting out of their hurt.

I am not aware of every aspect of this saga, but I hope that others will bring this to light. However, this has been going on as a slow-moving battle for several months now and needs to be resolved with finality, once and for all. I believe this will be a good opportunity to get everything out in the open and have it settled by people who are tasked with looking at the evidence and allegations closely, with a dispute that the community cannot resolve.

Reading the comments below, correct, it should only be on conduct, though the question on whether Raul can ban people from TFA/R may need to be examined to reach that determination. I personally believe he can, but others seem to disagree. --Rschen7754 18:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also (apparently I didn't make this clear), I think the FA process (especially FAC) is generally working; I sent an article through there this last week with good results, and I plan to send more there. The issue is having the process disrupted by poor user conduct (like TFA/R was earlier). Perhaps I should have called this "Conduct at the Featured Article process". --Rschen7754 18:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Johnbod

Largely because of [7]. Sandy has been mostly inactive the last six months, but she definitely has a lot of stuff to say, so that is why I included her. --Rschen7754 18:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Elen of the Roads

[8] is concerning. --Rschen7754 19:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Nobody Ent

Leaving out Crisco was probably an oversight; depending on the scope of the case opened, should one be opened, he should probably be added. --Rschen7754 20:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from The ed17

The featured article process, taken as a whole, has functioned very well since 2004. This is reflected in the last RfC, where a large majority supported Raul's continued tenure as FA director. However, there is a vocal minority that support a more open FA process, and the individual actions taken by some of the parties above—which is in Arbcom's purview—was and still is highly questionable. I personally believe that the dialogue has reached a low enough point that an arbitration case is warranted, but it will not be clear cut or easy. An investigation here will have to trace the history of these discussions through several years of text spread across a plethora of account names. Possibly thanks to its complex nature, the community has proven unable or unwilling to tackle the issues raised here, so I urge Arbcom to accept this case. Good luck. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Johnbod

I agree with Ed's analysis above, but draw the opposite conclusion. Presenting this mess in Arbcom conditions will involve a vast amount of everybody's time and is certain to damage the FAC process, which is already under strain from lack of reviewers, probably to produce no useful remedies. Why is Sandy a party? She unfortunately resigned as an FA delegate months ago & has hardly been active on WP since. Looking at the conduct of a couple of the individuals is the most that is likely to give any useful result. It would be helpful if all the names that some of the parties have used on FA-related pages were listed with their current names above, as by no means everybody is aware of all of these. Johnbod (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AGK

(Note: I have recused as an arbitrator in this matter.) In no particular order, the problems are alleged to be:

  1. Raul654's conduct as an administrator;
  2. Raul's role as featured article director;
  3. Raul's treatment of Br'er Rabbit;
  4. Br'er Rabbit's treatment of Raul;
  5. Supporters of Raul and Br'er forming 'factions' to opine in editorial processes.

In 1–4, I see nothing that requires arbitration, though if I could I would instruct Br'er and Raul to keep apart.

5 is worrying. I've noticed more such factional rivalries in recent months; because these rivalries are incredibly long-running, they may in the end require arbitration. Br'er and Raul are at the centre of these factions. However, at this stage I do not see that the rivalries significantly affect the encyclopedia, and the effort you would spend investigating this dispute does not seem to justify the limited benefit. I recommend declining the request at this time.

It would be wrong to make this request an opportunity to investigate Br'er Rabbit (Jack Merridew) and the one-account restriction. Disregarding a handful of long-term detractors of Br'er, the community has expressed no appetite to ban him, nor increase his sanctions.

Lastly, I discourage Raul, Br'er, and others from continuing to interact. The project is large enough for you all to easily avoid one another. If arbitration of this dispute does begin at any time, the process will be unpleasant and the result dis-satisfactory. Please do not twist the committee's arm into opening a case. AGK [•] 11:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles: I do not believe the community has concerns about Raul654's use of the administrative tools. The community overturned Raul's protection of the TFA page, but his actions were not an egregious violation of policy—and did seem reasonable, at least to this editor. AGK [•] 17:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

The recent flare-up from my review of the facts involve Rabbit breaking/messing up code on the process page; Raul as director of the process page taking umbrage; Rabbit not apologizing and being arguably inflammatory or dismissive; Raul taking questionable administrative action to in his view protect the process, then reporting it to ANI for "solution," then reversing his administrative action, after reluctance; discussion of "solution" (which do not appear fruitful); then here. This seems to need a process solution; whether you can provide for a way forward for it, and deal with the intendant larger behavior/history, which I am thankfully only a passing observer of, are issues you need to decide. Perhaps it's a passing thing or perhaps it needs a structural response. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dank

I'm searching around for something that will in some way clarify, diffuse or defuse some part of the conflict here, and I'm drawing a complete blank. Please don't take this case. - Dank (push to talk) 12:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Modernist

I'm not sure this is the right time for this. There has been a lot of animosity, accusation, misunderstanding, resentment, and anger displayed; which serves to blow off steam but hasn't presented any clear cut resolution to the difficulties. There should be a clearing of the air however...Modernist (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC) :This looks promising [9]...Modernist (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doing nothing isn't the answer either, I wonder out loud if anything ever takes hold; the gulf continues to widen between the parties...Modernist (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting link - way before my time here [10]...Modernist (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the bottom line is the character formally known as Davenbelle and dozens of other names - counter to all the rules on wikipedia - appears to have a vindictive side, runs rampant, and harasses certain editors like Raul and others and has a gallery of followers who pick up after him. What's the point of having rules - if this person continues to flaunt them?..Modernist (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Casliber

My feeling is that most people who would be the antagonists are more interested in building an encyclopedia most of the time, and that if things are allowed to run their course, then this will be less disruptive than a full-blown case, based on what I've seen so far. For that reason I think taking this case at this point would do more harm than good, however further developments may render that view incorrect. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - I mostly agree with AGK, though the (for lack of a better word) anti-establishment coalescence of editors is just that - i.e. people who are unhappy with the status quo for reasons both structural and personal, i.e. some long standing grievances uniting late in the peace. Problem is, this is not illegal, and I think the most that will come out of examining this with a case at the moment is probably cautions to a few antagonists....and a lot of bad blood all round. There are signs folks with opposing viewpoints are working together too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nobody Ent

  1. The FA subcommunity has made it clear they are comfortable with Raul as director and there's nothing wrong with that.
  2. Per local consensus the FA subcommunity may not exclude an editor from their portion of Wikipedia simply because I don't like you. Raul attempted to do so via a FPP and declaring a Rabbit ban and starting an ANI thread to validate the decision.
  3. The larger community made it clear to Raul that wasn't gonna fly, and he unprotected the page and the current ANI "ban the Rabbit" discussion is running strongly oppose and will probably end soon.
  4. It's all good. There's no case here. Nobody Ent 14:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754. Can you explain how you came up with the involved party list. Some of your diffs are from Conti, but they're not included; none of the diffs are from Diannaa but she is. SandyGeorgia statement names Wehwalt, Arsten, PumpkinSky and Crisco as part of the "usual band of supporters"; the first three are named but Crisco is not. @SilkTork: In my totally anecdotal observations Br'er Rabbit contributes a good amount of content and is active in Wiki-politics, often employing an agressive, snarky tone. His meme appears to be (my interpretation only) that content/quality is the most important and all those other niceties (civility, cooperation) take a lesser role. All in all, I consider him like Earth in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: mostly harmless. There's some yada-yada-yada history with ArbCom's smoke-filled back rooms and his multiple accounts which I don't know or understand (hopefully you guys do); it's my understanding all is (was) forgiven and he's now strictly using the Br'er Rabbit account. Nobody Ent 20:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt. She's coming back? brutally attacked? She's an editor on a website not Glenn Close emerging from the bath tub. Nobody Ent 17:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HJ

AGK's statement of the issues is excellent, and spot on from what I've seen. His description of rival factions forming is particularly accurate except, perhaps, that these factions have been around in some form or other for years, and they've never seen eye to eye—it's only now that they're having a very public falling out that is spilling over to various FA-related processes—but I agree it's a cause for concern. Something needs to be done about it, but I don't know if an arbitration case would bring any benefit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Boing!

I'm offering a few thoughts here mainly because I commented in the current fall-out, but I only spoke about one specific aspect, and I don't want it to look like I'm in one faction or the other. My knowledge of the TFA process is not great, but I've seen a little of it. I've never interacted with Raul654 as far as I can recall, but I have great respect for the work he does and I recognize he has wide support for his current role - and from my position of relative inexperience, I share that support. I have had minor (pleasant and friendly) interaction with SandyGeorgia, and I have had brief (pleasant and friendly) interactions with Br'er Rabbit. All appear to me to be passionate about their commitment to Wikipedia, and all seem to have the best interests of the project at heart. It's a real tragedy when good people like these, and their supporters, find themselves in opposition. If everyone was in the same place, I'd suggest getting together over vast quantities of alcohol, and I'd buy the beer (I've seen that approach settle so many scores over the years - it's hard to maintain one's affronted dignity when you've wet yourself and can barely walk ;-)

The facts of the current situation have been explained well by just about everyone who has commented - AGK, NE, etc, so I have nothing to add to that. I'm not sure what can be done, but I share HJ's hope that something can. And, erm, I'm sorry I can't offer anything more constructive than that - I just wanted to share the frustration I feel when I see good people with common aims fighting each other. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK, re: "I do not believe the community has concerns about Raul654's use of the administrative tools. The community overturned Raul's protection of the TFA page, but his actions were not an egregious violation of policy—and did seem reasonable, at least to this editor". I think the implicit suggestion that an individual has been granted autocratic rights to ban anyone they wish from their area of interest and to protect pages in support of their personal position in a dispute, in violation of everything that WP:Consensus stands for, is very wrong - I cannot find anywhere where that power was explicitly given to Raul654, and I would vigorously oppose any such proposal. Limited community-granted powers are one thing, and I have no problem with that, but I really don't see where "It's yours, do as you like, in direct violation of Wikipedia policy and the ideal of consensus" has ever been granted to anyone. This part of the community very much does have a concern about Raul654's use of the administrative tools in this case. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

The matter can be resolved directly. Next time an editor with a history of questionable behavior starts harassing, either intentionally or cluelessly, they can be blocked until such time as they agree to stop misusing Wikipedia.

Raul, please don't feel any need to use administrative tools against people who are provoking you. Just ask for help.

The question of Raul's Featured Article position has already been resolved by a community discussion. Those in the minority who disagree with the outcome should stop pursuing their political ends by other means.

To the various parties who place loyalty to friends above all else, please consider my opinion that you are not helping your friends. It is better to let them face the consequences of their actions and learn from the experience.

Committee, please reject this case. I have never seen a situation where arbitration resolved a feud, unless some of the feuding parties got banned, and I don't think anybody here wants that. If you do take this case and don't issue bans, you will merely provide a venue for further feuding and intensify the mutual animosity. I don't see any value in that approach. Jehochman Talk 15:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. If factions are getting on each other's nerves at TFA, they might try holding discussions where nobody signs their comments. Let each comment stand on it's logical merit, regardless of who said it.

Statement by Mark Arsten

With respect to the filer, the featured article process isn't really the issue here--at heart, I think this is mostly a dispute between Br'er and Raul. Besides, FAC & FAR are running like finely oiled machines, TFA is the part of the process with ongoing problems. Hopefully, a well-crafted motion could settle things between these two valued contributors. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, I encourage the committee to take action in regards to the harassment that Wehwalt has reported below. Again, hopefully via motion. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My76Strat

It would be a tremendous waste of valued resources to have a full blown case simply to reach the conclusion Mark Arsten highlighted above. These are all valued contributors and nowhere is there a record of conduct that would require the intervention of the ArbCom body or the effect of their sanctions. IMO 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

mostly diffs by Br'er Rabbi

Most of my TFAR posts are either support/opposes or comments on issues in the articles. Last week there was a mistake made re Herne Hill railway station's date and I fixed it. BOOM! There have been a lot of complaints about the late scheduling; User talk:Dabomb87#TFA procedures, User talk:Wehwalt#Main page blurb..., User talk:Malleus Fatuorum#got a job for you..., User talk:Brianboulton#care for Mally's job?, Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#Timing.

It's been said that the FA Process (FAP) is working fine. It's not. There are all manner of not-our-best issues that have long gotten through the FAC process. I pointed out major problems with a just-passed FA to GrahamColm and he called the problem "Unacceptable". Upshot; I raised the bar a bit. There are major issues in many of the FAs and this is due to the whole process and many of the key participants having little regard for anything but the brilliant prose aspects. The process is actively hostile to technical people. This is the work of Raul and Sandy, who've ruled with iron fists for years. It is within the committee's remit because it is about building up FAP as a wiki-political entity, of creating a hierarchy of editors with most dismissed as "bottom dwellers" (Sandy). Things at FAC have been improving of late, largely due to Sandy's absence. Raul still runs TFAR and that's a major mess.

Some key diffs and links re my participation at TFAR:

The ed17 has fixed 21 August by scheduling USS New Ironsides:

There's more, of course; all my posts were removed from TFAR and the page full protected against me when I disputed it. The arbitrary page ban that was shot down at ANI. Meh.

This is not the first time Raul has misused tools regarding me:

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wehwalt

In my opinion there is an issue regarding the FA process which it would be a good thing if the committee would review. Because those who say everything is hunky dory there are mistaken.

I do not feel, first of all, that I have anything to fear from this committee. I called, in January, for changes in the FA processes I felt would improve them. My position did not prevail. So I did what we are supposed to do under such circumstances. I shut up about it. I shut up even in the face of sniping from SandyGeorgia and Raul. I shut up when Raul overrode my protection of Alarbus's user page to blank it, even though he did not ask my consent and must have known I would not support it. I shut up to keep the peace, even when other editors complained about short notice of TFAs. I shut up when I placed Washington quarter on the TFA/R template for possible nomination on August 1 (the 80th anniversary of release) and Raul immediately took it and ran it on a day of his choice. Dianna discusses the Hobart matter below, I like to be able to watch a TFA to take care of any unexpected matters, and that time I couldn't. I had been planning to go back to Paterson to do more research on Hobart before the TFA, I didn't get to do that. Apparently, I'm a party because SandyGeorgia keeps mentioning me as disrupting FAC (!) in a rather lengthy screed which is linked at the top of this page. That's not the first time she's mentioned me in such an unflattering connection. The fact that we now know it won't be the last is one reason this committee must act.

I have never proposed Raul's ouster, I take no shame in saying that I have sought to improve the process, that the Featured Article Director, if we are to have one (do we need one? What does Raul do that is indispensable, assuming there are active delegates?), be fair, active, and competent. That he move to push the process ahead, not let it drift. To be a uniter, not a divider. But so what if I did. What if I had called for his ouster? What if I did that now? Arbitrators. In a few months, those of you who must seek another term to continue your service, and choose to do so, will likely have some people calling for your ouster. I say that not because of anything in particular you've done, but because it is par for the course. How is Raul different, that calling for his ouster is high treason? Let alone, just calling for reforms in the process ... These things must be unobjectionable to and indeed protected by this committee and this community, as long as people do so civilly. We all seek to improve processes, and there are sometimes disagreements, but civil discussion is the path to improving this project. I will go so far as to say that meeting such efforts to improve things with unbridled, unrelenting, and unending hostility, damages Wikipedia.

What I proposed, civilly, and without rancor at the AN/I thread, was bringing in someone responsible to the community to deal with it when Raul is either late or has a conflict of interest. That diminishes Raul's power only to the extent Raul lets it through inaction or hostility, and on his head be it then. It's an idea. Is there something wrong with the idea? Maybe, there are always things that have to be worked out. Should it subject me to the heavy hand of ArbCom? No.

One thing I'd like to mention, which is the myth which is being peddled that somehow this began when I and some partners in crime hijacked an RfC which was supposed to be for quite something else. No. This began when TCO submitted his report on the FA process, which Sandy did not like and which she brutally attacked him for, but she also conceded a RFC on the FA leadership process. She tried to start the discussion some hours after I had declared a wikibreak but fortunately (or not) I looked in on it. Every aspect of that was attacked or filibustered by Sandy. It's very difficult to bring up issues of concern when she's going off every night and you don't want it brought upon you.

Which leads me to the question I have for ArbCom, and why you must take this case: She's coming back. Do you think this is going away?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Diannaa

Wikipedia is one of the top viewed websites in the world. The main page received 9.5 million hits in the last 30 days! But there's a problem: the daily featured article, chosen by Raul, is not being selected far enough ahead to give interested editors a chance to check over the articles to do polishing or prep work. Examples (there's other examples; this is just a selection):

Yet the notice sent out by the bot is worded as though there's all the time in the world to prep the article or even request another date. It's not a new problem. Also, a recent complaint about an image could not be addressed effectively as the article was already on the main page (this was the incident that drew me to TFAR recently; I nominated a couple of articles). Choosing the article of the day and writing the blurb is practically Raul's sole activity on the website. He isn't visibly involved in the other featured article processes such as evaluating featured article candidates. Br'er Rabbit's recent activity at WP:TFAR was as a result of his trying to make a correction when Raul mistakenly scheduled Herne Hill railway station for Aug 21, when the 150th anniversary of its opening is on the 25th. Raul used admin tools to fully protect the page; consensus was reached on ANI that Raul has to consider himself "involved" as far as Jack is concerned; this makes sense in light of the fact that they were on opposite sides in the failed attempt at FA reform in January. This is the second administrative misuse of tools on Raul's part with regards to this user; he should not have blocked Alarbus on March 30, either. There's been some high feelings on both sides, for sure, but incorrect use of tools needs to be taken very seriously.

If Raul's sole on-wiki participation in the FA process is to choose the daily featured article, and it's the opinion of several editors that the job is being done inadequately, we really can't put to bed the notion of FA reform. The pages could be redesigned to make them more user-friendly, for example, or the process of selecting the daily article could be done by consensus rather than fiat. I'm not heavily involved in the FA process so I can't guess what other changes might help make the process run better. People resist change, so it won't be painless. But there's been many positive changes since January and some melting of barriers between the two camps can be observed; Ceoil and Br'er exchanging banter on Br'er's talk page, and Truthkeeper's recent collaboration suggestion are two recent examples. There's behavioural issues too, but that's not an Arbcom remit until other dispute resolution frameworks have been tried. My opinion is that the community can continue to work on this issue without arbcom intervention at this point. Positions on both sides are not as clearly drawn as they were a few months ago, and hopefully the matter can be sorted out without an arbcom case. -- Dianna (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by WaitingForConnection

For all the drama surrounding it, Wikipedia:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership itself was surprisingly well managed. The first question was if anything worded with a bias in favour of an elected position, so I can't see the argument that a pro-Raul clique was dictating the discussion. That RfC showed that the community is capable of deciding how it wants TFA to operate, while Raul's unprotection of TFAR in response to the recent ANI discussion is further proof of the community's ability to handle TFA. In summary, the community has proven itself competent in this area. There was drama along the way, but that would be dwarfed by the amount of drama a large Arbcom case would cause.

Raul's reason for his actions is that he believed he had authority to act as he saw fit at TFA . If there is evidence to suggest that this was dishonest (I haven't seen any), then an RfC/U should probably be initiated. If the claim was made in good faith but incorrect, an RfC on the TFA director's role is a clear prerequisite. One way or another, the community options to deal with Raul's actions issue have not been exhausted, and there is good reason to believe that a community process could work. Thus, at this point in time I don't think Arbcom has a mandate to look at conduct which relates primarily or exclusively to TFA. Strip that out, and I don't see the point to a case. I think Courcelles has reached a similar conclusion in a different way. —WFC— 01:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Truthkeeper88

There's a behavioral issue along the lines of "my way or the highway" with a disregard for consensus building or other community processes, which has been ongoing for months, has depleted morale, most likely has been a cause for editor retirements, and that should be addressed. I'd urge the committee to frame the scope and identify what is in their remit and focus on the behaviors that have brought us to this point.

@Tony1 - I tried by offering to build a bridge. The offer wasn't accepted. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tony1

I'm struggling to see how an ArbCom case would be helpful. Have other avenues been tried? And isn't it all blown out of proportion? Tony (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Brianboulton

I agree with Tony, above. I am cross that Raul seems unwilling to act in regard to the unsatifactory notifications on TFAs, but I am not going to lose sleep dwelling on this grievance. I am bored with Brer Rabbit's provocative and often insensitive editing style, but so what? Life (and editing time) is too short, and we need our best editors at work on the encyclopedia, not tied up here. I fear this process will not change anything other than to foster more ill will; it should end now. Brianboulton (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/2/7)

  • Waiting for other comments. My preliminary thoughts are that the process itself is not quite within the Committee's scope, though conduct of those involved in the process would be if there is evidence of cause for concern. I'm unclear of the conduct concerns regarding Raul. The RfC was strongly supportive of him, and the difs are vague in regards to evidence of poor conduct sufficient for an ArbCom case. The concerns regarding Jack Merridew/Br'er Rabbit seem more significant, and I'd be interested in hearing other opinions on his conduct. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could be persuaded otherwise and revisit this request, but at the moment I'm not seeing enough conduct issues or disruption for an ArbCom case. Decline. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. AGK [•] 11:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting further statements. My initial view is similar to Johnbod's - accepting this case as presented will take up a lot of everyone's time for little benefit. A more focussed case, with fewer parties, may well be preferable. PhilKnight (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waiting for more comments per Silk. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. What conduct issues do seem to be noted here do not appear to be severe enough to merit arbitration. The allegations of administrative conduct against Raul do not seem to be terribly concerning, in light of the fact that he brought them to ANI for review and did undo his own actions after discussion. The conduct issues between Raul and Br'er/Jack can be resolved at a lower level, I believe. And issues revolving around how the FA process is administered appears to be outside the remit of this Committee. The only matter of concern is the factionalism as noted by AGK, however if it is limited to the FA area it does not unduly impact the rest of the project, and hopefully lessened interactions between Raul and Br'er/Jack will mitigate that as well. As such, I do not see the value in accepting a case here at this time (although will reconsider once statements from Raul and Br'er/Jack are posted), however I would note the following:
    • Raul, I would agree with Jehochman in counseling you to seek assistance from others when facing difficulties with other users. Avoiding the impression of being involved aside, it provides a second perspective into the situation which can help clear your own mind about it.
    • Raul and Br'er/Jack, if it comes down to it, I would likely not oppose a formal interaction ban between the two of you. I would hope that the two of you can agree to let matters drop, but if that's what it takes to avoid this boiling into an arbitration case that nobody would appreciate, so be it. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 17:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting more statements, but one thing that isn't clear is this: Is there a deeper issue with Raul's use of the admin toolkit than one allegedly poor protection, or was this just an isolated incident? There's a mess here, but much is clear, but this issues of how the FA process should be organized and ran is well outside this scope of any case, and it is not at all clear that when you strip all the things we aren't empowered to rule on, if there's enough left to make this a useful exercise. Courcelles 17:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting further statements from the principally involved editors. Agreed that we have no jurisdiction over the process per se, and if we do decide to take a case, it will focus only on conduct. Jclemens (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting further statements, preferably keeping the bad faith in check. Per Courcelles I'd be interested to know if the dark mutterings about Raul have any validity - but put up or shut up please, don't just make riddling hints. Equally, just pointing to the past history of the individual behind the Br'er Rabbit account gets no one any farther. Show evidence of actual disruption now. And if this is arising out of frustration with the TFA process, then be honest about that too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 18:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting statement from Raul, but it appears that this arises from frustration about the timing of setting up Today's Featured Articles, compounded by generally poor relations between two of the parties. It seems to me that scheduling TFA is a simpler 'press office' type function, separate from the more detailed and technical work involved in making sure an article is fit for the main page, and the community should be able to deal with the problem if the 'press officer' is having difficulties. While a motion of the 'Raul and Br'er Rabbit should not behave like egits towards each other" type could be considered, do we really need something so egg-sucky? Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse as to Br'er Rabbit in light of recent negative interactions between me and this editor. Decline as to all other issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment now, leaning toward acceptance - The interactions and conduct at the heart of this request have been festering for almost half a year, and have had a ripple effect through the project. I have not to this point seen a clear enough summary of relevant facts to unreservedly accept a case; however, only two of the identified parties (and none of the key parties) have commented at this point. Risker (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My first thought is that there should be trout slappings ordered in bulk quantities and handed out liberally. I would suggest that the parties move away from fighting over process and turn towards what the laudable goal of FA is, to provide a goal towards improving Wikipedia articles, and to provide a bit of recognition towards those editors who produce some of the bewst work that Wikipedia has to offer. I'd suggest the parties disengage voluntarily, or be made to disengage. I would also note that the FA process itself, its rules and regulations, and its membership are outside of our scope. Like Risker above, I'm leaning towards acceptance, but I will hold off on formally voting to await more statements SirFozzie (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b McCarthy, Meghan (March 4, 2012). "How Contraception Became A Train Wreck For Republicans". National Journal. Retrieved March 13, 2012.
  2. ^ [11]
  3. ^ Shine, Tom (February 16, 2012). "Rep. Darrell Issa Bars Minority Witness, a Woman, on Contraception". ABC News.
  4. ^ O’Keefe, Ed (March 28, 2012). "'Where are the women?' dispute settled. Kind of". The Washington Post.
  5. ^ "Pelosi aims to draw contrast with GOP on contraception policy". CNN (February 23, 2012). Retrieved March 17, 2012.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=508045697"