Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions
→Statement by Guy Macon: Tweak |
CaptainEek (talk | contribs) →Statement by CaptainEek: Replying to CaptainEek (using reply-link) |
||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
[[WP:ELEM|WikiProject Elements]] has had a number of issues recently. The most intractable currently is between Sandbh and Double Sharp. I don't honestly understand the crux of the issue, but I know there is one. The dispute has been to [[WP:ANI]] some FIVE different times. The third trip to boards was almost productive...before both Sandbh and Double Sharp starting posting just absurd [[WP:WALLS]] of text. The third thread was closed on the 11th (yesterday) with the recommendation that it was too complex for the community and that it go to ArbCom. Neither participant has listened to that request, and each of them opened a new ANI thread in the last 24 or so hours, each of which has been closed and the participant told to go to ArbCom. But seeing as neither listened when they were told it previously, I am shortcutting and directly reporting both of them. I do not believe that I have been previously been a party to the dispute, and have only commented on one of the ANI threads. This has gone beyond the ability of the community to solve the issue, and I hope the ArbCom word limit will be of much use here. [[User:CaptainEek|<span style="color:#6a1f7f">'''CaptainEek'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<span style="font-size:82%"><span style="color:#a479e5">''Edits Ho Cap'n!''</span></span>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 21:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC) |
[[WP:ELEM|WikiProject Elements]] has had a number of issues recently. The most intractable currently is between Sandbh and Double Sharp. I don't honestly understand the crux of the issue, but I know there is one. The dispute has been to [[WP:ANI]] some FIVE different times. The third trip to boards was almost productive...before both Sandbh and Double Sharp starting posting just absurd [[WP:WALLS]] of text. The third thread was closed on the 11th (yesterday) with the recommendation that it was too complex for the community and that it go to ArbCom. Neither participant has listened to that request, and each of them opened a new ANI thread in the last 24 or so hours, each of which has been closed and the participant told to go to ArbCom. But seeing as neither listened when they were told it previously, I am shortcutting and directly reporting both of them. I do not believe that I have been previously been a party to the dispute, and have only commented on one of the ANI threads. This has gone beyond the ability of the community to solve the issue, and I hope the ArbCom word limit will be of much use here. [[User:CaptainEek|<span style="color:#6a1f7f">'''CaptainEek'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<span style="font-size:82%"><span style="color:#a479e5">''Edits Ho Cap'n!''</span></span>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 21:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC) |
||
:At the suggestion of Nick, I have added DePiep as a party. [[User:CaptainEek|<span style="color:#6a1f7f">'''CaptainEek'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<span style="font-size:82%"><span style="color:#a479e5">''Edits Ho Cap'n!''</span></span>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 22:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC) |
:At the suggestion of Nick, I have added DePiep as a party. [[User:CaptainEek|<span style="color:#6a1f7f">'''CaptainEek'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<span style="font-size:82%"><span style="color:#a479e5">''Edits Ho Cap'n!''</span></span>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 22:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC) |
||
::The astute [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] has pointed out that I missed two ANI threads, which brings the total count up to a whopping seven: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive322#Dispute_on_an_RFC a report from July that saw no outside involvement], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1048#Incivil_behaviour_by_User:DePiep another thread with Sandbh, Double sharp, and DePiep from September] [[User:CaptainEek|<span style="color:#6a1f7f">'''CaptainEek'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<span style="font-size:82%"><span style="color:#a479e5">''Edits Ho Cap'n!''</span></span>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 04:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by Sandbh === |
=== Statement by Sandbh === |
||
Revision as of 04:24, 13 November 2020
Requests for arbitration
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
---|---|---|---|
Elements | 12 November 2020 | 0/0/0 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
---|---|---|---|
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) | Motion | (orig. case) | 17 August 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
About this page Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
Elements
Initiated by CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ at 21:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Involved parties
- CaptainEek (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
- Sandbh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Double sharp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- DePiep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- First ANI thread in August
- Second ANI thread, about ELEM in general More trouble with Sandbh and also User:DePiep. I am not making DePiep a party to the case at time of filing, but I do wonder if more than just Sandbh and Double Sharp are the problem here
- The third and almost productive trip to ANI
- The fourth time at ANI
- A fifth! journey to ANI. If only you got free airline miles for that many trips
- One of several threads where EdChem gallantly tried to mediate
Statement by CaptainEek
WikiProject Elements has had a number of issues recently. The most intractable currently is between Sandbh and Double Sharp. I don't honestly understand the crux of the issue, but I know there is one. The dispute has been to WP:ANI some FIVE different times. The third trip to boards was almost productive...before both Sandbh and Double Sharp starting posting just absurd WP:WALLS of text. The third thread was closed on the 11th (yesterday) with the recommendation that it was too complex for the community and that it go to ArbCom. Neither participant has listened to that request, and each of them opened a new ANI thread in the last 24 or so hours, each of which has been closed and the participant told to go to ArbCom. But seeing as neither listened when they were told it previously, I am shortcutting and directly reporting both of them. I do not believe that I have been previously been a party to the dispute, and have only commented on one of the ANI threads. This has gone beyond the ability of the community to solve the issue, and I hope the ArbCom word limit will be of much use here. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- At the suggestion of Nick, I have added DePiep as a party. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- The astute Levivich has pointed out that I missed two ANI threads, which brings the total count up to a whopping seven: a report from July that saw no outside involvement, and another thread with Sandbh, Double sharp, and DePiep from September CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Sandbh
Statement by Double sharp
Statement by DePiep
Statement by Nick
I'd suggest adding DePiep as an involved party - they have a long history of low level tendentious editing which should be examined, though I would doubt there's anything in their involvement here which rises to the level of being seriously sanctionable. Nick (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Jehochman
Please accept this case. I closed thread #3 on WP:ANI when it grew so long that uninvolved editors started posting desperate pleas to close the thread. Once a thread grows to a certain size, the only people who will read and comment are the disputants themselves. Uninvolved community members simply will not invest the time to read hundreds of kilobytes of redundant, convoluted and irrelevant argumentation. These disputants will benefit from the structure provided by arbitration. Jehochman Talk 22:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
What's this about?
Key witnesses:
- @EdChem, R8R, YBG, and Narky Blert: please comment.
Statement by Beyond My Ken
Much to my surprise, I NAC-closed the first ANI as a content dispute, but in glossing the subsequent reports, it seems to me that behavioral issues have come into the foreground, which puts it into ArbCom's territory. I urge the committee to accept the case to deal with those issues, as I don't believe that any other mechanism will be useful, since they lack arbitration's capacity to structure the case and strictly limit the participants' obvious verbosity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Deepfriedokra
- Please accept. What Jehochman and Beyond My Ken said. I went cross-eyed trying to read #3. These are obviously very bright people, but they need structure to focus their thoughts and to help them sift this. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- @KrakatoaKatie: Thanks for that. I feel less dumb now. Made no sense of all that. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved Mr rnddude
I have archived that behemoth thread. You can reference it here. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Guy Macon
I have been watching this ongoing dumpster fire but have not commented on the pages involved because I too do not understand what the dispute is about. I have one suggestion: instruct the clerks to revert any statement by anyone on this page that goes over 550 words (the extra 10% is in case they are using a different word count tool).
Might I suggest an innovative solution? If you manage to get a concise summary of what they are fighting about, give ANI another shot at it. The admins are just as capable of providing structure as the arbitrators are -- you just have to ask them to control the discussion instead of letting it blow up again. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Statement by {Editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Elements: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Elements: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
- Awaiting further statements, but given the history, this is likely to be accepted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Also awaiting statements, but leaning accept. What I think could be very useful at this stage from the parties is a brief and succinct description of what the crux of issue is here. The ANI threads are unparseable given the walls of text: could you please try to explain the main points of the dispute (a bulleted list of, say, 5 members could work, 5 x 100 words = 500 words), without the extraneous details (these we can get to later if needed). Maxim(talk) 00:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Maxim that we need a short summation of the central problem. I consider myself to be relatively bright, and I have 18 hours of chemistry in my college transcript, but I can't make heads or tails of these ANI threads other than we're arguing about the periodic table somehow. If we can't understand the issues, there's going to be a serious temptation to use a belt sander where a nail file would do, and hand all these editors a blanket TBAN from chemistry-related topics, because this situation is not sustainable. To be clear: I don't want that to happen. Belt sanders are loud and messy. So help us out here and find us a way to use a nail file. Katietalk 02:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)