Jump to content

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
→‎Single-payer health care: Archiving declined case request
Line 2: Line 2:
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}}
== Single-payer health care ==
'''Initiated by ''' [[User:CartoonDiablo|CartoonDiablo]] ([[User talk:CartoonDiablo|talk]]) '''at''' 09:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|CartoonDiablo}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|Scjessey}}
*{{userlinks|Thargor Orlando}}
*{{userlinks|North8000}}
*{{userlinks|Arzel}}
<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scjessey&diff=prev&oldid=533668705 Diff. 1]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thargor_Orlando&diff=prev&oldid=533668735 Diff. 2]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:North8000&diff=prev&oldid=533668801 Diff. 3]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arzel&diff=prev&oldid=533668823 Diff. 4]

;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_37#Public_opinion_on_health_care_reform_in_the_United_States First DRN]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_51#Single-payer.2Fhealthcare_polls Second DRN]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_36#Health_care_articles NPOV Noticeboard]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_58#Single-payer_health_care.2C_United_States_National_Health_Care_Act Third DRN]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Single-payer_health_care#RfC:Are_the_polls_on_the_page_measuring_a_single-payer_system.3F RfC]

=== Statement by CartoonDiablo===
The fundamental argument is whether the polls in the article are polls of single-payer healthcare or polls of various types of government healthcare and thus do not warrant inclusion in the article. It has gone through 4 different noticeboards and one RfC and will most likely not be solved outside of arbitration. Given the format of the section, I will refrain from making the case towards a side or comment on user behavior. [[User:CartoonDiablo|CartoonDiablo]] ([[User talk:CartoonDiablo|talk]]) 09:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
:@Roger Davies It has gone through the normal process including 4 noticeboards and it's still not solved nor will it be solved. The problem is a fundamental difference over what people consider to be objective reality. [[User:CartoonDiablo|CartoonDiablo]] ([[User talk:CartoonDiablo|talk]]) 06:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

=== Statement by named but not involved North8000 ===

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

'''''The talk page of the article ([[Talk:Single-payer health care]]) makes all of the above abundantly clear.''''' <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 10:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

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

<s>I shall not be watching this page in case my head explodes, so</s> If anyone needs anything further from me I would request that someone leaves a message on my talk page. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 13:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC) <small>Okay, I watched it.</small> -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 20:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
:I suggested that this matter go to RfC/U months ago (including in the DRN) because of Thargor Orlando's behavior, not the behavior of anyone else. CartoonDiablo has been trying every Wikipedia avenue to resolve the situation, which is not the same as the "forum shopping" being alleged by other involved editors. Let me make this clear for members of the Committee: the specific problem here is agenda-driven editing with unwillingness to compromise. This poor behavior has been ''enabled'' by the appearance recently of other editors who share the same political ideology as Thargor. Wikipedia articles should be ''neutral'', and that is not the same as ''balanced''. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 20:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

::'''Note''': Thargor Orlando has now filed an [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CartoonDiablo|RfC/U]] against CartoonDiablo. I see this as further evidence of Thargor's single-minded, agenda-driven approach. Easier to attack the user than accept consensus is against you, I guess. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 17:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

=== Statement by Thargor Orlando ===

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

CD’s behavior has pretty much stood in the way of gaining any consensus on the article. The dispute is [[Talk:Single-payer_health_care#Problem_with_.22like_medicare.22_in_polling_section|over 8 months old at this point]] (arguably it’s actually [[Talk:United_States_National_Health_Care_Act#On_the_polling_section|well over a year old]]), spanning multiple articles (Single-payer health care, [[Talk:Public_opinion_on_health_care_reform_in_the_United_States#Single-payer_table|Public opinion on health care reform in the United States]], and United States National Health Care Act), and encompassing multiple disputes. CD [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AThomas_Sowell&diff=504632587&oldid=504632080 doesn’t understand the point of dispute resolution processes], believing them to be binding to content as well as using it as a bludgeon to build a case for ArbCom. He [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Single-payer_health_care&diff=530384183&oldid=530355082 consistently asserts a consensus that doesn’t exist] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&diff=530202370&oldid=530201704], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=530197293]), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=531281036#Thargor_Orlando_editing_against_consensus_of_single-payer.2FUSNHCA accuses his “opponents” of canvassing (falsely)], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=531022654#User:CartoonDiablo_reported_by_User:Thargor_Orlando_.28Result:_.29 edit wars (including 3RR violation)], and creates [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/North8000/Archive bad-faith sockpuppet allegations], all in an attempt to remove those who disagree with him from the process. This is not his only conflict, either, as he’s had numerous issues with other editors at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=514580751#Psychotherapies the Psychotherapy-related articles], at [[Thomas Sowell]] (which was also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=next&oldid=500803976#Thomas_Sowell rejected] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=491822760#Thomas_Sowell twice by ArbCom]), at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:War_on_Women/Archive_1#.22Attack.22.2F.22Used_by_democrats.22_in_lead War on Women], and so on.

The key point in all of CD’s disputes? His self-professed point of view which causes him to push viewpoints from single payer health care to political talking points to [[Talk:Thomas_Sowell/Archive_3#Media_Matters.2C_again|questionable]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wage_slavery&diff=prev&oldid=532786688 or outright partisan] sources to articles (more: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vietnam_War/Archive_20#Redoing_the_entire_.22Insurgency_in_the_South.2C_1956.E2.80.931960.22_section] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vietnam_War/Archive_21#5_Million_dead_and_RJ_Rummell.3F]. His point of view editing stands in the way of gaining consensus throughout most of the contentious articles he edits in, and results in factual issues and tendentious editing.

Again, if there’s an issue for ArbCom to address, it’s behavioral. CD will likely see his behavior addressed in some form with or without ArbCom involvement, so I see no need to accept this case, but if it is accepted, the laundry list is quite long.
* To [[User:AGK]], I considered an RFC/U at one point regarding this information. Given CD's claims about what dispute resolution is for, his threats of ArbCom whenever he fails to get his way, and his history of forum shopping, I see no evidence that that simply shunting this to yet another forum that CD won't accept as legitimate will help solve the problem in play, but rather might delay eventual resolution. I may have been premature in thinking this could be solved through eventual channels. [[User:Thargor Orlando|Thargor Orlando]] ([[User talk:Thargor Orlando|talk]]) 16:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

=== Single-payer health care: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/0/1> ===
{{anchor|1=Single-payer health care: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small>

* '''Comment''': awaiting statements though my current instinct is to decline. Is there any particular reason why this needs to come to ArbCom rather than be handled in the ordinary way through administrative action or via the administrators' noticeboard? &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|''talk'']]</sup> 11:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
* Although this was at one stage a content dispute, it appears to have evolved into a problem of user conduct. Given that those problems have not been referred to the community for action, it seems to me as though an administrators' noticeboard or a user conduct RFC would be more appropriate than a full arbitration case. I'm inclined to decline this request. [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 14:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
:* '''Decline.''' [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 13:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
* '''Decline''' as a content dispute; while it seems there may be conduct issues involved, none of the linked discussions appear to have addressed those conduct issues and instead focused solely on content. ArbCom will not decide matters of content, and I'd like to see some community-based effort to resolve the conduct issues before we hear the case. I would recommend an RFCU as the best course of action, as a discussion on AN may become unnecessarily drama-filled. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <small>[[User:Hersfold non-admin|non-admin]]</small><sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 18:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
**@Thargor Orlando: If a user who is the subject of an RFCU refuses to acknowledge and agree to improve upon behavioral issues in the light of a clear consensus that there are in fact issues, that could be grounds for administrative action (i.e. blocks) without the need for a drawn-out and exhausting arbitration case. That is, if the RFCU determines a user is disruptive, and the user continues that same behavior, an uninvolved administrator would be well within their authority to block said user for disruptive editing. A conduct resolution process does not need to have the weight of ArbCom behind it to be binding - the will of the community is stronger. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <small>[[User:Hersfold non-admin|non-admin]]</small><sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 18:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
*Leaning towards decline at this time; I'm of the opinion that a well-presented case (not by either TO or CD) would have the potential to attract one or more uninvolved administrators that would be able to handle this in a better fashion than an arbitration case. I'll await more statements before making up my mind. '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 21:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
**'''Decline'''. '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 19:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''. Content discussion is ongoing. There is some edit warring, but this is not conduct serious enough for ArbCom. Edit warring can be dealt with by requesting the attention of an uninvolved admin who can decide to issue blocks and/or lock the article. '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<font color="#347C2C"><sup>✔Tea time</sup></font>]]''' 22:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' There are some issues here, but nothing beyond the normal level of competence of a forum like ANEW. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 07:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 12:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano| <sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]] 13:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' per Hersfold, NW and Courcelles. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 21:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:23, 20 January 2013

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Historical elections 13 Sep 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion none 26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) none none 17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 8 September 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=534073255"