Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Portal Issues		23 March 2019	0/0/1

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Aug 2024	03 Sep 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	none	none	26 July 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Portal Issues

Initiated by Robert McClenon (talk) at 22:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Robert McClenon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• The Transhumanist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SMcCandlish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Legacypac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Thryduulf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• The Transhumanist
• SMcCandlish
• Legacypac
• BrownHairedGirl
• Thryduulf

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Thousands of Portals
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legacypac and portals
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1005#User:SMcCandlish disregarding ban from my talk

Statement by Robert McClenon

This is a request for arbitration of conduct issues involving portals, including the creation of portals, and debates over the deletion of portals. There have been several threads at WP:AN and WP:ANI on this topic, and some of the cases are still open, as listed above. Perhaps the most heated is also listed above, which resulted in no consensus with regard to the two parties, but a widely expressed view that the matter would need to go to ArbCom. Arbitration is a last resort and is needed when the community is unable to resolve a conflict, as is evident in this case. The primary focus is Miscellany for Deletion discussions for the requested deletion of portals, and Deletion discussions are often controversial. I am asking ArbCom to consider whether either ArbCom discretionary sanctions should be available in deletion discussions in general. I am of course also asking ArbCom to consider whether civility violations by the parties require sanctions. I am also asking ArbCom to consider whether the creation of thousands of portals, some of them defective, by User:The Transhumanist and others, was disruptive editing in itself.

The community is divided by at least three types of issues. The first is policy issues, of what the policy should be regarding the creation and maintenance of portals. The consensus in May 2018 not to abolish portals was not a consensus to create thousands of new portals. The second type of issues is questions of deletion or retention of portals, and deletion is a content issue. The third is conduct issues, which interfere with the orderly resolution of the policy and content issues. I am specifically asking ArbCom to resolve the conduct issues.

Follow-Up Comments

I have no objection to a mandated hiatus on requests for the deletion of portals. However, I find the statement of concern that the critics of portals are attempting a fait accompli by piecemeal deletion of portals after discussion in a public community forum to be ironic, after thousands of portals were created without discussion and then their existence has been cited as the status quo that should be left alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Observations

I agree that this case has strong similarities to the Infobox cases. Infoboxes and Portals are both optional features of Wikipedia. Some editors love them; some editors hate them; some editors behave badly in pushing their viewpoint. ArbCom tried to let or tell or order the community to deal with infobox wars before finally imposing an effective draconian remedy. The issue of Portals or No Portals will continue to annoy and divide the community until the ArbCom concludes that a draconian remedy is in order.

Those of us who either dislike Portals or think that Portals are an overused capability also think that this case bears a strong resemblance to the Neelix redirects.

It will be overly optimistic for ArbCom to decline this case by thinking that the community is a few days or weeks away from solving it. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Legacypac

1. [1]
2. At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Alhambra, California User:Ɱ (who should be party if this proceeds) says "A guideline (WP:POG) that I don't have to follow" and "you even stated in one that you were spreading out the nominations (not several portals in one nom) in order to give the impression of more nominations against small city portals. That's essentially fraud." I believe this is a bad faith fabrication.
3. In the same MFD TTH says [2] which is very problematic.

1. If this is accepted I'm prepared to show User:Thryduulf behavior is suboptimal. By suggesting we stop MFDs now he is forumshopping arbcomm to get what he can't get at the AN WP:X3 discussion. Even if all Portal MfDs close delete, the deletion rate per day will be much slower than the creation rate per day as seen here [3]

Statement by BrownHairedGirl

I see no need for such a broad Arbcom case. Thee may be some individual conduct issues to examine, but that's all.

The broad facts are simple. A huge number of portals were created by a semi-automated process, and this has been highly controversial. Some of the more extreme creations have been taken to MFD (e.g. University of Fort Hare), and and RFC is considering whether to have a special speedy-deletion criteria for others.

Views vary widely, but are not intractably polarised. So what the community most needs now is broad RFC to settle which portals (if any) should exists. An Arbcom case would merely distract energy from that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

There are two types of conduct issue here - those around the mass creation of the portals and those related to the subsequent effort to delete them. The first has stopped completely, one of the principal proponents, The Transhumanist (TTH), has been recently topic banned (long after the fact) and ~5 days later this topic ban has not been breached.

Several users, most notably Legacypac, but BrownHairedGirl (BHG) and others also, have (in the words of Certes) declared a "war on portals" - with countless MfD nominations and numerous proposals to speedy delete them and/or restrict the - see WP:AN#Thousands of Portals (particularly the subsection WP:AN#Proposal 4: Provide for CSD criterion X3) and WT:CSD#Extend R2 to portals. Opinions that do not align with the view that all mass created portals should be deleted as quickly as possible (for whatever reason and to whatever degree) are frequently met with hostility, assumptions of bad faith, borderline incivility and misrepresentation (see WP:AN/I#Legacypac and portals for some examples.)

I would recommend that the committee look into the conduct of all parties (myself included) and pass a temporary injunction against new MfD nominations of portals (by everyone) until the case concludes or all RfCs relating to the deletion of portals are formally closed, whichever happens first. There have been 23 new nominations of portals (some covering tens of portals) in the last three days alone, causing the appearance of attempting WP:FAITACCOMPLI. Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@SilkTork: and others. This is a mix of content and conduct disputes, the former are obviously outside arbcom's jurisdiction but the conduct issues which are hindering collegial resolution of those issues (see [4] for another report on Legacypac for example) is very much within arbcom's remit. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac's comment above [5] is a good example of the assumption of bad faith I mentioned. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by SmokeyJoe

This is a years old Portals / Outlines issue, and I think it is frustrating generally due to the lack of agreed forum. For years, Portals have been discussed at MfD, but MfD processes just one at a time. Outlines have largely been pushed out in the direction of Portals. Portals have recently become a feature in multiple threads at AN, and WT:CSD. WT:Portals has hosted discussions, but few opposed to Portals bother going there. Now there are RfCs in the works, in userspace, where userspace-ownership has proven an issue. I think no editors are at fault, all act in good faith. I think what is needed is an agreement to a central discussion, not AN, not MfD, not WT:CSD. This is an unusual discussion because one option on the cards is the depreciation of an entire namespace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

The only issue of far-reaching importance I see, is the issue of 'mass creation', which is bound to lead to some segment to fret over 'mass deletion'. My own take of the portals created are that they are at worst harmless, at best, someone's idea of useful exploration of a topic, so the actions and reaction of some seem just too much.

On the other hand, I am not aware of whatever standards we have for mass creation or script assisted creation and I can see mass creation potentially causing multiplied problems (perhaps earlier Arbcom cases have dealt with this). Nonetheless, there is no doubt that these things are conduct. So, though, I don't actually see individual user focused remedies being useful, here, a thoughtful in depth review of the ground around mass creation and/or script assisted creation, would be good use of this committee's time - at least by pointing to where and what the issues/policies/guidelines (and lack there of) are. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Kusma

I do not think that the issue has reached ArbCom-level disruption. The Transhumanist mass-created portals (with very few clicks each). Many people think that wasn't a good idea (I am one of them, and have voted to delete many such portals, nominated others at MfD, and reverted some "upgraded" portals to their old semi-manual versions), and so cleanup is now on its way, along with discussions about what topic deserve portals. There is also (too little) discussion of what portals are currently good for, what they could potentially be good for, and what the community wants them to be. Consensus on the simplest possible cleanup solution (just nuke the lot) hasn't quite arrived yet, and so we have many individual MfDs where the same discussions are going on. In a way that just means we're hashing out the criteria for portals at MfD instead of at some centralised RfC, which is time-consuming and tedious, but should also produce some rough criteria after a while. The advantage of the current approach is that we learn more about special situations of certain portals, which might be overlooked in RfCs covering several thousands at once. The Committee should decline this as premature: either this is resolved quickly through CSD X3, or slowly through a couple of months of MfDs. —Kusma (t·c) 14:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by User:Pldx1

It seems difficult to pretend that mass-creating content-less portals, like the late Portal:E (mathematical constant), could be a content problem, instead of a behavior problem. It remains that a temptation is great for the ArbCom to pretend that the community should work harder, instead of pretending that said community cannot address such a simple disruptive behavior (and all of the minor side effects of this disruption). 14:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

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.

Portal Issues: Clerk notes

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

Portal Issues: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Recuse. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• I would like to hear from the other named parties and wider community, but based upon the preliminary statements so far, I could see a case being useful here if only to examine the issue of conduct more closely. Mkdw ^talk 03:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing where ArbCom could be involved in the Portals discussion - that appears to me to be a community discussion, and one which the community are dealing with. However, there is some heat between SMcCandlish and BrownHairedGirl, which would be worth getting a wider view on to see if a case is needed. SilkTork (talk) 05:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• At its heart, this is a content dispute, and so we need to be careful not to step too far into that if we do review the conduct issues here. I do not think ArbCom has the jurisdiction to suspend MfDs of portals, as these are firmly within the realm of content. I also question whether a month-long arb case would just make the eventual discussions surrounding portals even more contentious, by placing these editors in direct conflict with each other for a prolonged period of time. Instead, my initial thoughts are that this case bears a stunning resemblance to the Crosswiki issues case request. We might consider resolving it the same way, by authorizing discretionary sanctions over all discussions related to portals for a finite period of time as this situation is resolved through normal community processes. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: The community has not definitively decided whether it wants these portals (as an editorial choice), and how to deal with them if it doesn't (as a procedural matter). In particular, a decision has not been reached as to whether these portals deserve a new CSD. By deciding on these issues, the community would unchoke many of the discussions/MFDs underway – thereby also resolving most of the situation-based conduct problems we are seeing. I would be inclined to deal with this matter by a motion (1) clarifying the committee's advice as to resolving, (2) passing any injunctions needed to assist implementation of our advice, and (3) reserving a fuller case, to be opened if needed. I am not opposed to opening an arbitration case, but I actually think that isn't how we can best assist in this particular matter. AGK ■ 14:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)