Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AlexandrDmitri (talk | contribs) at 22:08, 27 December 2012 (→‎Motion regarding Jerusalem: motion enacted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Jerusalem Motions 16 December 2012 {{{votes}}}
[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).

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

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Jerusalem

Initiated by tariqabjotu at 19:38, 16 December 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 Tariqabjotu

The Jerusalem article has a problem.

For nine years, discussions have raged on the talk page regarding the point in the lead that the city is the capital of Israel and, to a lesser extent, that it's the capital of the State of Palestine. Around April 2007, just before the article achieved FA status (yes, I know, unbelievable), it was decided that the point would be settled by inserting a footnote explaining the controversy. In October 2010, a (further?) compromise was struck that called for noting immediately after the contested point that Jerusalem's status as capital is not widely recognized. While that seemed to maintain calm for the better part of both 2011 and 2012, over the past few months, the issue has been rekindled with a fire and desperation like never before. While there have been more than ninety threads on this matter, at least four RfCs, and at least two attempts at mediation (both rejected, including one rejected just this month), we have been left with zero ends in sight.

The impetus for this mediation is less a direct accusation of misconduct by some of my adversaries, but more a request to consider the accusations made by them. Over the past few weeks, there have been an increasing number of accusations from them that some people are "blocking" any sort of resolution (e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4]). There have been claims that those supporting the current wording are just pushing the Israeli POV (e.g. [5], [6], [7]). These accusations have been countered by allegations that some are pushing the Palestinian POV, reminding them the current formulation is the result of the October 2010 discussion (in which some of the current proponents of change were actually participants).

Unsurprisingly, this has fostered an environment in which the improbable has been rendered impossible. Several people from both sides (myself included) have said that even attempting to discuss this matter with one or more adversaries is a waste of time. A few editors have stated that there are no policy-based arguments for maintaining the current wording, with one saying he has "consensus by default" because of that. In recent days, it seems like there has been focus on a particular wording that mentions, but distinguishes between, Israeli and Palestinian claims, but some are still arguing that's not far enough. Throughout, there have been threats of bringing people to WP:AE or WP:RfC/U or ArbCom for the alleged "blocking" and accusations of ownership.

So I'm calling the bluff, requesting that these accusations (and any other issues) be considered. Unaddressed, any sort of resolution is impossible, as it is impossible to discuss with people who believe your every word is in bad faith and intended to push a point of view. Further, I personally -- and I'm sure I'm not alone in this -- am worried that if a compromise is struck again, there is no guarantee, without a third-party observer, that the editors involved in this discussion will drop it for good. I'm not confident an arbitration case will end this matter either, and I'm sure this time of the year and the ArbCom calendar is not ideal, but we need to try and I urge the Arbitration Committee to consider this case. -- tariqabjotu 20:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I didn't know where precisely to stop with naming parties. I tried to only list people that were recently active in this dispute so as not to unnecessarily drag people in, but people who would like to be apart of this could presumably add themselves. -- tariqabjotu 20:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Hersfold's questions:
  1. It was intentional to not make any accusations; I (and others who support the current wording) am more the target of accusations than one making them. However, some of their statements, in the course of making their accusations, suggest a battleground stance, with labels such as "hasbarists", "racist", and "hatikvah brigade" (to say nothing of the standard "Israeli POV-pushers") have been thrown around recently. A second notable issue is that Dailycare is now arguing against the current wording, saying that cannot have consensus because it's not supported by policy-based reasons -- despite agreeing to it two years ago. There are probably several relevant policies that come into this dispute (like WP:UNDUE, which can be cited from a few angles), but these are less conduct issues and more content issues.
  2. I don't edit in other parts of this conflict, and only recently (in October) returned to this article after a two-year hiatus. So, I don't know.
  3. Perhaps. Someone even suggested to meet that that might be a good/better course of action. But, I'm not convinced an admin would have the courage to act on accusations that aren't very concrete.
  4. I'm not sure what you mean by "in which members of the entire community participated". Are you suggesting some sort of RfC that actively attracts members from outside the Israeli-Palestinian topic area? Or is this nothing beyond a normal RfC? If you were thinking of the latter, neither an August 2009 RfC nor a January 2010 RfC, both of which suggested no change (n.b. those were even before the October 2010 change), put this matter to rest.
  5. Some pointers that would clear the air. Do the user conduct issues have weight? Is there "blocking"? Are some people breaking a compromise? What does a compromise mean? I understand ArbCom doesn't rule on content, but I would hope that you could rule on the framework that would allow this dispute to be resolved. Maybe you'll even come up with something innovative. -- tariqabjotu 03:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the suggestion by one of the ArbCom members, I'm perfectly happy with a binding mediation (or RfC), but as you see, voluntary mediation didn't work and I don't think mediation could be made involuntary otherwise. -- tariqabjotu 13:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One more revision to my answer to Question 1 comes by looking at the recent edit history. A formulation that was never discussed was just put into the article (and reverted back in after it was reverted out). Other than that, I can't imagine needing to elaborate further; the tone and contents of some of the statements here speak for themselves... as I expected and intended. -- tariqabjotu 18:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once again regarding the binding RfC: If you all are going to leave this with suggesting a binding RfC, can one of you at least provide the framework for it? Perhaps a small group of administrators could be charged with unanimously agreeing on its conclusion and paying attention to it to some extent? Perhaps you could dictate where and how the RfC is advertised (if at all) to gain a broad section of the community? Binding RfCs don't generally come organically (especially as very little is truly "binding" around here) and, as you've seen, seemingly permanent resolutions have not really held. -- tariqabjotu 04:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't give a shit anymore. When whatever process or medium is set up to resolve this issue once and for all, feel free to ping me and I will provide my input as appropriate. But, until then, I have no interest in the proceedings here and on the talk page. No one is going to change his or her mind. Some people are going to hold fast to their positions that their opponents are guilty of blocking or filibustering or violating some policy. Some people are going to continually misstate their opponents' positions. Some people are going to continue to respond to straw-man arguments, and insist that the straw-man arguments be defended. I did not sign up for Wikipedia to be subjected to such abuse and stress, and it is a colossal waste of time, especially at this time of year, to be dodging that while discussing some text that has no importance or consequences on Wikipedia, let alone in the real world, with people who care so much more about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And without any third-party observation or intervention, this will continue.

MedCom rejected this issue. ArbCom has rejected it. Some aren't even sure this needs some direction. I'm sorry, but if that's the way the Wikipedia community feels about this, if a hundred threads over nine years, with the current talk page containing more than 500KB of heated text from at least a dozen editors, only necessitate rejection, the weakest of imperatives, and the suggestion from an elected member of the most powerful committee on Wikipedia that this matter might have been brought to its attention "earlier than necessary", well, forgive me for ever giving a shit. -- tariqabjotu 19:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dailycare

I support this request for arbitration. We've been to formal mediation twice (or, more exactly, twice the formal mediation didn't go ahead due to incomplete assent). Overall editors have been discussing the issue for years with RFCs and threads. Progress in content has been glacial to put it gently, there may be significant WP:Stonewalling behaviour involved, and frustration has manifested as uncivility in the long discussions. This does, of course, relate to a significant real-life controversy that arouses strong passions so this shouldn't be surprising. --Dailycare (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples of behavioral problems: 1, 2, 3 and 1, 2, 3. The latter edits were made by an editor who is an administrator of the project, unless I'm mistaken. (Further examples are easy to find).
2) The same issue is present in the Israel article with regard to the same statement.
3) I don't know. AE may be an option, although here we have several involved editors.
4) An RFC would fail if the same group of editors can "just say no" to prevent an outcome as are saying no currently to prevent an outcome. If this possibility is somehow controlled, an RFC might work.
5) An ideal outcome could be that a clearer vision is communicated with regard to civility and stonewalling. --Dailycare (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One way to make any binding RFC more useful could be to limit the number of responses to three per editor. Each editor could then lay out his case in these three edits, and the closing admins could then assess the relative merits of the arguments to assess whether the proposal on the table has consensus, giving each argument weight according to its merits, rather than counting votes (WP:RFC says this). In this sense if editors just show up to say no, they couldn't force a "no consensus" result. The edits could even be done in rounds, so that each editor can contribute one comment in "round one", which is then followed by "round two" and "round three". This may in fact sound a bit like mediation. --Dailycare (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the 'withdrawing' of the filing party doesn't affect the rfc plan. There is clearly need to move this issue forward, we've had a few normal rfcs already. Dailycare (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alertboatbanking

As I stated in my previous comments I favor no particular final solution because it will never happen. The unreliability and poor quality of articles on the Arab-israeli conflict will be a permanent feature of wikipedia for decades to come. As long as prominent notices alert the reader to the manipulations of the more active/effective side (currently Israeli nationalists) little more can be done.

Ravpapa nicely states it as "[failure means] there are some topics about which we cannot write objectively" This I think is absolutely correct and I believe the failure is inevitable.

The bad acting partisans are intelligent calculating and don't give a hoot about wikipedia and are acting based on nationalistic motivations. So the realistic energy-optimal strategy towards them is not confrontation or arbitration but containment. Anyone who thinks the interests of their precious nation is more important than wikipedia should be barred from editing it. In lieu of that poor quality tagged dispute ridden articles will have to do.Alertboatbanking (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

I dont honestly see what an ArbCom case would do to resolve this issue. There hasnt been any edit-warring, or at least nothing on the scale as to require a case to resolve, and while the talk page may be a bit uncomfortable it hasnt reached a point that the standard discretionary sanctions couldnt deal with. If this were to be accepted as a case, the outcome would likely follow the pattern of you banning anybody who knows anything about the dispute, resulting in a new group of partisans arguing on an even lower level. The Wikipedia way, tried and true. nableezy - 05:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq, that last comment is patently untrue. The formulation was discussed, the exact sentences and sequences were brought to the talk page yesterday, however you refused to answer any questions, repeatedly. Instead you only said that it would be reverted without once providing a cause. You cannot refuse to discuss the content and then complain that it was never discussed. What is this, kindergarten? No I wont play soccer. No I wont play basketball. I wont talk about what game to play. Teacher! They're playing football without me!!!! nableezy - 19:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Binding mediation would be a good idea. I dont think an RFC would be a good idea for this, its too involved an issue for *Support. nableezy - 07:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please listen to Steven. And would a "no consensus" RFC be binding for three years as well? Binding mediation would be an exponentially better method to resolve this dispute. RFCs in this topic area rarely get meaningful uninvolved comments. nableezy - 19:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know if any of the arbs are reading this or not, or anything else, but in the hopes that you are could I ask that you play this out and answer a few questions? What brief, neutral statement could possibly exist that would summarize this dispute? What do you think the chances of an RFC getting significant uninvolved input in this topic area? What do you think the chances are that this ends in anything other than a "no consensus" result? Is a "no consensus" result binding for 3 years? If so, does that mean that the current wording is enshrined for 3 years? If not, where would we be other than right back here? How would the RFC question be formulated? Why not binding mediation instead of a binding RFC? nableezy - 21:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pluto2012

I wrote on the Talk page that I would ask the ArbCom to study the issue if we could not find a way to move forward on the article. Tariqjabotku did it before.

The referees asked the right questions :

  • Sort of dispute is exactly where WP:YESPOV, applied in good faith by editors striving to reach a neutral statement describing a contested reality, is supposed to prevail. (Jclemens)
    • That's my mind and indeed the situation is contested except that I personnaly cannot believe any more in the good faith of some other editors. If we would apply the rules of NPoV quietly (ie just referring to what reliable sources state) that would be easy to solve.
  • "why mediation has so far failed to achieve a lasting solution to this dispute ?" (AGK) :
    • I arrived lately in the discussion but per my understanding, mediators refused to take the mediation in charge.
  • "What specific allegations of misconduct are you making?"
    • There are personnal attacks but that is not a problem
    • A side is WP:GAMING the system in refusing any evolution of a pov-ed sentence based on the fact it has been in the article for months. I assume the other think that we are biaised (?).
  • "Is this misconduct impacting other areas of contention within this topic area?"
    • There are problems on all articles relatived to the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
  • "#Is there some reason why existing discretionary sanctions will not suffice to resolve this dispute?"
    • I don't think sanctionning anybody could solve anything. WP:GAMING or WP:WIKILAWYERING cannot be solved by any "discretionary sanction".
  • Would an RFC on the lead section, in which members from the entire community participated, work to bring a compromise to the central issue of content?
    • I think that a part of the problem is that too many people intervene. No discussion can evolve because it goes in all directions and people do not answer to others'arguments and everything turns around.
  • "If this case is accepted, what would you see as an ideal outcome of the case?"
    • I would propose the following to the ArbCom. Don't analyse the past but let's see the good will of contributors to solve this "under the eyes of the ArbComs". Let's create a page of discussion where a few contributors will intervene and let's see how it moves forward. If we don't succeed in solving the issue, the Arbcom will be able to say who is working in the global spirit of our wikipedia rules and who does not and it will be able to take a decision based on concrete facts. Doing so, we move forward, we don't need to dig the history of the articles and the discussions to prove this one or that one is the bad guy. We could even find a solution by ourselves because everybody knows that the Arbcom will just look at us. That is also a good opportunity to synthetize all arguments and refresh the discussions. And all in all, it is the more constructive.

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • Request to the arbitrators : 2 At least 3 arbitrators suggest a '(binding) RfC' closed by a designed independant editor/admin. This was tried in the past and suggested that 3 admins close such RfC. But the contributors could never be found. Given they are not involved and it seems there is a a least consensus to refer to ArbCom, could the arbitrators suggest/chose 3 editors that would close the case ? I am confident that this would help.
        Anyway, I still think a 'binding mediation' eg by the same 3 could be much more efficient. If this mediation could be done on a dedicated page to which we could refer in case of failure, that would even be better. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question to the arbitrators : I may be right or I may be wrong in considering that contributors refuse to move forward constructively and WP:GAME the system. We can comply to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF strictly but then nothing will evolve and this talk page will remain a WP:BATTLEFIELD (or a multi-players on-line game, whichever is the less childish). According to your point of view, how can we manage this contracdiction ? What community's principles give an answer to such a situation ? Pluto2012 (talk) 08:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

I agree with much of what Pluto2012 has said. The content issue is embarrassingly simple to resolve in principal because it is about correcting a basic error. Many sources have already solved it in ways that comply with our policies. All that is required is for editors to follow the sources and comply with our policies and guidelines. It should be easy but it has not been possible, largely it seems because the information in the sources gets convolved with editor's personal opinions on the real world issues. If the only thing that came out of this was that it stopped editors from writing their personal opinions/personal analyses based on what they think they know about the real world issue without "utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions" (to quote the discretionary sanctions) or what they think about other editors, it would be a huge leap forward. It's difficult to convey how low the signal to noise ratio is on that discussion page or how rarely people actually survey and look at how sources handle the contested status of Jerusalem. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators asked for an example of behavioral issues. Here is one that just happened. It's typical, so I'm by no means singling out this particular editor.

  • "Oppose this wording. "claims" again this goes back to the suggestions we add proclaimed capital. If we are going to pretend that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel.." etc. see diff. Why is it problematic ? It ignores countless sources that present Israel's claim that Jerusalem (complete and united) is their capital as a claim, rather than presenting it as a statement of fact. The statement is predicated on the editor's personal view that it is a fact that "Jerusalem is israel's dejure and defacto capital", and it is that belief, not the data in the sources, that is used to make content decisions. Also, no one wants "to pretend that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel". The issue is, as always, presenting a disputed claim as a unattributed statement of fact using Wikipedia's narrative voice. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you NMMNG, that is another example of a behavioral issue, misrepresentation, NMMNG saying that I am "pretending the people they disagree with do not base their views on reliable sources, which is patently false and obviously dismissive." Of course I know what the sources say because I'm one of the people there who actually does what they are supposed to do, surveys them and cites them in discussions. Of course I know that there are sources that say Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Of course NMMNG knows that I know this because I have explicitly acknowledged it on several occasions and I have told him many times that there is diversity in the sources and that we have to deal with the mess. And NMMNG should know by now that I never pretend about anything. There is no possible justification for this kind of misrepresentation, no one should have to deal with it. It needs to stop. Is the example I gave above dismissive of the views expressed by the editor in the diff ? I hope so. I'm not interested in what editors think is true, I'm only interested in what the sources say and how we can deal with that data. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments on mediation - According to Wikipedia:DR#Last_resort:_Mediation, binding mediation is about "reaching an agreement that can be acceptable to everyone". I don't think anyone should be concerned whether I, as a party to the mediation, find a solution acceptable. The objective should be to reach an agreement that maximizes compliance with policies and guidelines whether I or anyone else likes it or not. It should be possible to demonstrate that it is a near-optimal solution based on evidence in the sources, not the happiness of the participants. Having watched this issue for years, it seems to me that it is not possible for some editors to agree to a solution that does not include the unattributed statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". No amount of evidence in the form of sources that present the information in ways other than a statement fact will persuade these editors that the inconsistency matters and is a policy violation. It's therefore not possible to reach "an agreement that can be acceptable to everyone" that also maximizes compliance with policies and guidelines at the moment. They are mutually exclusive and will remain so unless the behavioral issues are fixed and editors are forced to follow the rules. I can see mediation working if it had zero tolerance for various behaviors such as voicing a personal opinion on an issue rather than citing a source/repeatedly making demonstrably false statements/using original research/arguing from first principals etc and the editor was immediately removed from the mediation process. At the moment there is zero cost for behavior that disrupts the process of finding a solution that complies with policy. Until that changes so that this is only about the sources, the policies and the guidelines, I don't think mediation can resolve it. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber, you said "reports of transgressions should be brought to Arbitration Enforcement". I see this kind of comment quite often but do you have any evidence based reason to believe that AE can handle it ? I don't. I've been editing in the ARBPIA topic area for years. I don't know how many AE reports I've watched but it goes back to at least Archive34 and AE is currently on Archive127. What I haven't seen is evidence that complicated issues covered by ARBPIA like persistently biased editing, anything that could involve large amounts of evidence, can be handled at AE. AE hasn't dealt with issues like that for ARBPIA. It has been used to deal with technical violations/edit warring and editors who make patently disruptive edits in the topic area. If AE could deal with (and editors could be bothered to file reports about) the longer term more fuzzy behavioral issues, I don't think we would be here today. The only people who could survive in the topic area would be those who follow the rules and edit neutrally. I would like to see AE become a venue that could deal with these kind of issues but that would probably involve filing test cases (and a lot of drama). Sean.hoyland - talk 20:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

I concur with Pluto's suggestions and Sean.Hoyland's follow up remarks, though I think Nableezy has made the right technical call, unfortunately, because it's realistic enough to appreciate that there is no clear behavioural issue in the extensive discussions that would call for the kind of corrective punishment Tariq's outline seems to suggest. Arbcom's remit is not to fix impossibly compromised pages.

Writing that recent discussions have been 'rekindled with a fire and desperation like never before', is hyperbole, and would appear hysterical were it not from the fact that that is not Tariq's style. Very level headed people (not myself) have honestly tried to work out a compromise and met a stone wall, but manners (AGF compliancy) have been almost impeccable. Just for the record, the humongous threads may be summed up in a thumbail form (Wikipedia#Jerusalem-lead for dummies), which you can without offense take as a time-saving device to avoid reading those massive archives.

There are two deeply problematical assertions in the lead, problematical because the form they take, is, per sources, self-contradictory, and represent poor compromises because of their clumsiness, which confuses two POVs with two facts, while pretending their is no POV problem.

A. 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.'

Put the sentence in propositional form, and you immediately see the problem.

  • (a) Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
  • (b) Jerusalem is not (recognized as) the capital of Israel.
  • (a) is Israel’s POV (b) is the POV of virtually all other states.

B. '(Jerusalem) is Israel's largest city in both population and area, if East Jerusalem is included.

Put the sentence in propositional form, and you immediately see the problem.

  • (a) Jerusalem is Israel’s largest city
  • (b) Jerusalem is not Israel’s largest city (since the assertion includes East Jerusalem which in international law is outside of the state of Israel).
  • (a) is the Israeli POV (b) is the non-Israeli POV.

In both these sentences, (a) an ostensibly factual proposition is asserted, and (b) then challenged as not true. The Israel POV is first asserted as a fact, and then denied as a fact.

Those who are unhappy at the way WP:NPOV appears to be deftly sidestepped here have endeavoured over several years to find a more balanced formula, in which the clash here between truth propositions that contradict each other would be replaced with a perspectival phrasing that clarifies neutrally the competing claims. The issue is resolvable by using the word 'claim' for both parties in (A). (B) should not be in the lead since it is based on a highly dubious if. Every suggestion that tries to address this has failed, in the face of a resolute preference for the text more or less as it stands, which, some argue, privileges the Israeli POV by prioritizing its basic claims as facts (is).Nishidani (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • '(Jerusalem) is Israel's largest city in both population and area, if East Jerusalem is included.
Per WP:NPOV,'(Jerusalem) would be Israel's largest city in both population and area, were East Jerusalem to become part of the state of Israel.' is the only way that sentence could be redeemed, since it is an (improbable) hypothetical astutely rephrased as a combination of a factitious 'fact' and an improbable conditional outrider, since the resident Palestinian majority of the East Jerusalem population refused Israeli citizenship. Of course, as such it has no place in the lead, nor in the text, being a conjectural speculation.Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy

This request is an exact mirror of the problems on the article talk page.

  • We have Dailycare, who agreed to the current wording as a compromise only to come back later, challenge it, POV tag it, change it while declaring he has "consensus by default" because whoever doesn't agree with him is part of the "hatikva brigade" and their views are not valid. Now he pretends the behavioral issue is with Tariq responding to his being a DICK and not with him being a dick in the first place.
  • Pluto accuses whoever disagrees with him of gaming the system, as if having an opinion and stating it is some kind of sneaky underhanded attempt to play wikipedia's rules in order to corrupt it.
  • Alertboatbanking, a pretty obvious sock which the resident "sockslayers" don't care about because he supports the result they want.
  • Sean and Nishidani pretending the people they disagree with do not base their views on reliable sources, which is patently false and obviously dismissive.
  • I assume ZScarpia will be here shortly to try to chill his opponents with threats, and we'll have a perfect microcosm. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by BritishWatcher

I am not convinced that Arbitration on this matter is the right way forward although i agree with a lot of what Tariqabjotu has said. There are three primary problems at present it seems to me and as Arbcom does not usually rule on content matters only one aspect of the situation might be resolved with arbitration and not the wider problem. Firstly we have in recent months seen a number of attempts to change the article, some of which have not been specific proposals, merely the fact some editors believe the current article introduction is wrong. There have been clear opposition to proposals and more editors times seem to support the current wording than any change, let alone a specific change.

Those of us supporting the status quo (which was based on the compromise agreed around two years ago) have on a number of occasions been accused of breaking the rules or doing something wrong, merely for supporting the status quo. So one thing Arbcom could probably help with is reinforcing the fact people are free to support the status quo, and that a change should only take place if there is a consensus. Not a change imposed by a minority of editors seeking to push aside objections.

The other two problems are content issues. The current wording is neutral and balanced. It states that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel but that this is not internationally recognised. That is accurate and balanced, and was a significant change prior to two years ago when the introduction did not mention at all the international community view in the first sentence, because it is handled in detail in another paragraph of the introduction.

Certain editors are insistent that the article introduction be changed to treat Palestine and Israels current situation in regards Jerusalem as entirely equal. That is not the case, and if we tried to treat them as equal it would be giving clear undue weight to the Palestinian POV. Jerusalem is the defacto, and dejure capital of Israel, rightly or wrongly that is indisputably the situation, although the future status of the city is certainly part of the dispute and that is already explained in the introduction.

Yet a few editors are demanding the introduction say Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel and Palestine. When I challenged one of the editors demanding the change to provide sources for this claim saying it would help justify the proposal [8], they initially said they would [9], then when I asked for specific reliable sources that say Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine [10] (which is what they have been demanded be added to the article).. the editor in question all but admits there are not the sources to back up such a statement. [11]. Not only did they never provide the sources requested, none of the other editors demanding change stepped in to provide sources either.

So theres no case based on Wikipedia policies, and no case based on sources for the change they propose. Also there is a third problem that is often overlooked. If we are to change the article to pretend that Jerusalem is not the defacto and dejure capital of Israel (and in Israel), then many other things about the article have to change too. For example at present the infobox shows the Israeli flag of Jerusalem, Israeli emblem for Jerusalem, the mayor of Jerusalem. These would all have to be changed along with huge amounts of the article if the small number of editors got their way and had the article act as though Jerusalem is not the capital and a city in Israel. Also none of those demanding change have produced evidence that a country cannot decide its own capital, or that a capital is dependent on international recognition. The international community officially do not recognise Jerusalem as the capital (something that is made clear) but there are numerous sources showing that Jerusalem does serve as Israels capital. Some countries do not recognise the fact the state of Israel even exists, we do not seek to say it may not exist in the first article of the Israel article.

So again, im not convinced arbitration is the right way forward, but if there was a ruling that editors are entitled to oppose proposals and support the status quo, it would at least help bring to an end some of the dismissive tones by those demanding the change, as though we have no right to take the positions we do.

Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ravpapa

There is so little one can add to a discussion so prolix! But I feel two things must be said:

First, editors and arbitrators who are looking for a permanent solution to this problem should be disabused: there is no permanent solution, because the situation is not permanent. The political forces affecting Jerusalem's status are constantly changing, and the article should reflect that. What we decide (or, more likely, don't decide) today will not be right tomorrow.

Second, arbitrator SirFozzie has suggested "binding arbitration" as a solution. I would strongly support such an approach if one existed. But, as far as I know, there is no such thing as binding arbitration (am I wrong?). The latest attempt at arbitration failed because not all the parties agreed to participate. Which is why, I believe, Tariq chose this forum to move toward a solution.

Nishidani and others are right that this case is outside the formal purview of the arbitration committee. I would suggest, however, that this is a time for you to take a bold step, live by the spirit of the fifth pillar, ignore all rules, and accept this case. To do otherwise would be to admit that the Wikipedia way has failed: that there are some topics about which we cannot write objectively, and that there are content disputes so intractable that the collaborative editing approach is doomed to failure. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Heim

Arbs who are suggesting a binding RFC or mediation, are you going to make a motion mandating one? If not, I can't see how this is going to happen. Number one, there's no guarantee the parties will make an agreement to such a method, and number two, without ArbCom's stamp, there's no guarantee the result of such a process would be honoured. The naming of Macedonia-related articles was dealt with by an RFC mandated by the committee itself and has as such been clearly enforceable. Leaving it to the community to sort it out without ArbCom's authority tends to lead to more and more discussion with no results. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, yes, it is absolutely true that the community can call RFCs on its own. What it cannot do is make them binding. You ask for people to agree that the result will be binding. That will not happen willingly in heated national/ethnic disputes like this one, it simply will not. Notice we've already had participants who disagree with doing so at all. It's true that it's theoretically possible for the community to force people to abide by the result through extensive policing; in practice, the community has practically never had the patience or collective attention span (and collective attention span is a really hard thing to achieve in any case) to police it well enough. Coming from the perspective of an AE admin, I would generally be unwilling to enforce in cases like this without AE rules to back me up. So if you're convinced we don't need a binding RFC at all, fine, but please don't go down this road of "we don't need a motion, the community can do it itself". That position is not grounded in the reality of what Wikipedia is like. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rschen7754

I've been thinking about the same thing for days, and Heimstern beat me to it. What makes the binding RFC binding is ArbCom's say-so. Otherwise, one of the parties won't agree to it just as they wouldn't agree to the mediation, and the whole thing will be a wash. You need at least a motion for it. --Rschen7754 08:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork nooooo. Having been in a similar boat many years ago, a binding RFC is what is needed, and is what the committee can do here. Otherwise, there is nothing binding about the RFC if parties do not agree to it. But why would I think that they wouldn't agree to it? Because they didn't agree to mediation, for the exact same reason: what if they lose? Then they have to forfeit the right to argue endlessly and continue disrupting the subject area in the process, while trying to get what they want. --Rschen7754 20:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steven Zhang

The issue at hand is no doubt a complex one which has been an issue almost since the inception of Wikipedia. Some community members and arbitrators have suggested a method of binding content resolution for this dispute (which sounds very familiar), however I note that preference seems to be leaning towards holding a binding RFC as opposed to some other form of binding resolution (like mediation). If I could offer my thoughts on the matter, binding RFCs have been used now and then on Wikipedia, with varying results. Some have success and bring peace, others are hopeless failures. Sometimes this is because the issue is so bitter that reconcilliation between editors is impossible, and the period in which an RFCs result is binding serves only as a brief ceasefire in a bitter war. In other situations (like the Abortion RFC), the structure of the discussion/vote is the cause of downfall. I would suggest mediation to be the better alternative, under the guidance of an experienced mediator. I am quite surprised that the Mediation Committee rejected a request for mediation when fourteen out of the sixteen listed participants who commented on the case (out of a total nineteen) accepted the request (and the requirements of acceptance was changed earlier this year to not require unanimous acceptance), but nevertheless, what's done is done.

I agree with what Nableezy said about a binding RFC being a bad idea. This situation seems to be too entrenched for anything except a split vote to occur, with minimal community input due to the contentious nature of the dispute, ending with a result of no consensus. Binding mediation has no real precedent that I know of, but it may be what's needed. For what it's worth, I'd be happy to mediate such a dispute - I think I'd be able enough to do so. But it all comes down to what's best for the dispute. I'd suggest mediation, failing that, a salted earth remedy like the Scientology case may be required. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 14:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • @ArbCom, my experience with the I/P articles is that people are reluctant to get involved because of the environment that exists in the topic area. The other thing I note is that the arbitration motion directs the community to set up the process, which in the past has had varying results. An RFC format is too free-form for a dispute of this nature. I think that mediation should be used to develop alternate proposed lede sections, like in the verifiability mediation, then followed by an RFC that is binding. It would create a more productive discussion. Please consider. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 23:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ArbCom, I'm aware that ArbCom cannot order mediation. They can, however, encourage for such a thing to take place (this was done in Prem Rawat 2. I also point out that in the Abortion case, the case closed at the end of November 2011, but wasn't opened until the end of February, after being set up by yours truly. The wording of the proposed motion below asks the community to set up and hold an RFC on the issue. But given the nature of the dispute, I have to wonder whether anyone would be willing to do so. I am not asking ArbCom to order mediation, but if the only option is a bad one (and I rarely talk out against ArbCom, but I only do so in this instance because I feel that throwing this dispute into an RFC in the deep end would be a bad idea) - then it should be passed back to the community. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 05:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by cptnono

The talk page has obviously failed. Editors are filibustering to the point that it is almost as disruptive as edit warring and it appears that no one wants to budge out of fear of hurting their cause. As mentioned on the talk page, a request for mediation with certain parties not invited could be a solution. For example: I don't want to spend hours discussing the issue. Nableezy not being invited would also be beneficial (he declined mediation but kept on arguing on the talk page) while others could also take a step back and let those without such passion hammer it out in a more structured, concise, cooler, and objective manner. An RfC might be fine but a select group of editors already involved might fix this in mediation. Conversely, people are going to argue over this issue no matter what the wording is so maybe the status quo is perfectly fine. The article might actually be sufficient as is and the issue is primarily talk page behavior instead of how the article currently comes across to the reader. I lean towards the former since there is nothing that cannot be improved.Cptnono (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Irrelevant to this case request. --Lord Roem (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The problem is obviously one of excess demand. This suggests that filing and commenting on Malleus related cases is simply too cheap. What we need is an entrance fee. Every time someone feels the need to file such a case they need to cough up, say, 70$ (I dunno, give it to the Wikimedia Foundation, or better yet, some charity). Every time someone feels like they must comment on the case, it's 10 smackeroos.

If you wanna translate this into Wikipdia-costs, then make it an automatic week long block for filing a case, and a day block for commenting. Standard procedure, no stigma, you just got to lay off for awhile.

That way, if there's a truly serious problem which really is deserving of a case, the person or persons concerned will be perfectly willing to cough up the cash, forkout the funds, bankroll the blocks. If it's the standard frivolous bullshit, they'll think twice about it.VolunteerMarek 20:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by ZScarpia

I'm in the camp which views the current wording as a prolonged case of prima facie point-of-view pushing. Since about 2007, I've participated in a couple of the futile, labyrinthine and archive-spanning attempts to change it by means of talkpage discussion.

That the current wording violates Wikipedia's neutrality principle has been shown (and ignored) time after time in the nine years that the current wording has stood.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

  • "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts."
  • "Avoid stating opinions as facts."
Further Clauses ...
  • "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views."
  • "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies.
  • "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it."
  • "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

Some history: after the 1967 War, the UN passed a series of resolutions stating that any current or past unilateral Israeli attempts to change the status of Jerusalem, East and West, were invalid, including Israel's Basic Law of 1980 which declared Jerusalem its capital.

Example UN resolution text ...

As one example, see Resolution 478 of 1980: "[the UN Security Council] determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent 'basic law' on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith." As another example, see Resolution 267 of 1969: "that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel which purport to alter the status of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, are invalid and cannot change that status." (see article Positions on Jerusalem)

Example repercussions od UN resolutions ...

Accordingly, the UK government, for example, takes the position that: "... no state has sovereignty over Jerusalem. The UK believes that the city's status has yet to be determined, and maintains that it should be settled in an overall agreement between the parties concerned." One recent demonstration of the disputed status of Jerusalem was at the London Olympics, where the BBC listed Jerusalem as the seat of government, rather than capital, of Israel (and East Jerusalem as the intended seat of government of Palestine). Another concerned a complaint made to the UK Press Complaints Commission about The Guardian stating that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. The Commission ruled that there had been no breach of its code (The Guardian subsequently updated its style guide so that it no longer calls Tel Aviv Israel´s capital, instaed just stating that Jerusalem should not be referred to as the capital of Israel).

Given the above, I cannot see how "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is not a seriously contested assertion and that making it in the Lead of the article does not, therefore, breach the neutrality policy. In fact, the first sentence in the Lead doesn't even properly summarise the body of the article.

In line with the neutrality policy, editors have been asked to modify the Lead so that it either states something that it is not disputed, such as that Jerusalem is the declared capital of Israel or that it is the capital under Israeli law, or that it represents the claim that Jerusalem is the capital as the Israeli point of view. Nobody is particularly exercised over the form of words used, so long as the neutrality policy is adhered to. However, ignoring the Wikipedia definition of what a fact is, it is an article of faith with editors taking the Israeli view that it is a fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Therefore, what looks as though it should be a trivial matter to fix, has taken on the dimensions of an ideological struggle. To support their position, editors taking the Israeli view have advanced identical, partisan arguments to those advancing the Israeli position outside Wikipedia, ignoring the counter-arguments and falsifying the position of what is commonly referred to as the international community. A set of double standards has been applied in order to minimise, or avoid, mentioning the Palestinian position on Jerusalem in the Lead.

(more to follow)     ←   ZScarpia   12:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC) (hats placed in text -- 12:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Perhaps two discussions should be held, one on how to observe the neutrality policy and one on the actual wording, with the former being the more necessary. Some previous discussions have ended with a show of hands on who thinks that it´s a fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital, subverting the principle that, in Wikipedia, facts are based on sources, not editors's opinions. A bit of regard for policies would be nice. On the question of whether there have been any behavioural issues, I'd say, definitely yes, nine years worth.     ←   ZScarpia   13:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by formerip

Noting the suggestion that RfC closers should be appointed in advance. I don't strongly mind if this happens, but in past successful binding RfCs (e.g. VnT, Muhammad), these details have been left to disputants and have not been imposed by anyone. Editors have put out their own "adverts" for closers, held their own auditions and applied for mediation in the normal way (e.g. to formulate an RfC question). I don't think there would be any clear benefit to ArbCom assuming this role. The risk, on the other hand, is that disputants may decide not to respect the outcome, on the grounds that ArbCom chose badly. For the Muhammad RfC, the in-advance/when-the-time-comes issue was decided (by disputants) in favour of the former, so that editors would not be able to bypass the RfC and instead appeal directly to the closers. The decision here might be different, but I think it should not be a matter for ArbCom. Formerip (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Sent by me to the clerks' mailing list, a moment ago: "Dear clerks, You will notice that it is now mathematically impossible for the Jerusalem RFAR to be accepted. However, an arbcom-l thread regarding this case request is pending, and we are waiting to hear back from one arbitrator on a particular point of discussion. Therefore, please do NOT archive this case request until further notice. I've copied this instruction to the on-site clerk notes section." AGK [•] 23:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Tritomex

I wish to point out, that the initial question of this subject was the both part of this sentence. Those two parts namely "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" and "although not internationally recognized as such" were equally but separately viewed as they are already balanced. Numerous sources are relating to this subject, without mentioning international dispute in the lead. F.x CIA fact book [12] National Geography and [13] and [14] Index mundi [15] even in sports and entertainment [16] etc. So if this sources without any dispute point out that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, our lead is at least already balanced with the negation of this claim through "international community" --Tritomex (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

We need better management of case requests. Something is very wrong when an experienced administrator has an expletive-containing hissy fit after the arbitration committee refuses to take a case related to an intractable dispute. Would you all please stop abdicating your responsibilities: you Tariq, and you The Committee. Jehochman Talk 14:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

  • Awaiting statements, though I see the argument that a case would be useful here. Courcelles 23:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a good point below -- is there enough misconduct to justify the time spent on a case, or can we get to the point quicker, and where a case would surely end up, by ordering a binding RFC by motion as we have done in cases with similar problems in the past? (Abortion, Ireland, Muhammad Images, etc.) Courcelles 18:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting statements, but I'll note that this sort of dispute is exactly where WP:YESPOV, applied in good faith by editors striving to reach a neutral statement describing a contested reality, is supposed to prevail. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also await statements, but I note the apparent failure of community-bred compromise to hold for any great length of time, and I consider that failure to indicate that an arbitration case may be necessary. The failure of previous attempts at mediation is particularly concerning, and I welcome comment regarding why mediation has so far failed to achieve a lasting solution to this dispute. AGK [•] 01:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reflection, existing conduct issues can be dealt with under the discretionary sanctions provision of WP:ARBPIA. As a result, only a content dispute is left, which this committee can merely pass back to the community. Decline because, sadly, we can do no more good to this dispute. AGK [•] 23:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to make it clear up front, the Committee will not rule on the content-based part of the dispute (although I don't think the filer expects that); we will only review the allegations of misconduct. I'm also going to wait on more statements, but I do have a few questions for those posting statements to provide input on:
    1. What specific allegations of misconduct are you making? Tariq's initial statement mentions a number of different accusations made by a number of people towards a number of people, but doesn't seem to make any claims of his own. Dailycare's also alleges misconduct, but not by any specific user, and seems to focus more on content besides.
    2. Is this misconduct impacting other areas of contention within this topic area?
    3. Is there some reason why existing discretionary sanctions will not suffice to resolve this dispute?
    4. Would an RFC on the lead section, in which members from the entire community participated, work to bring a compromise to the central issue of content?
    5. If this case is accepted, what would you see as an ideal outcome of the case? Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Decline as a primarily content-based dispute. I would also suggest a binding RFC to resolve this matter. If it can be demonstrated that there is misconduct preventing discussion beyond the issue of the introduction to Jerusalem I may reconsider (and I would again ask for answers to the questions above, which most people seem to be ignoring), but I'm gathering from the statements so far that this is not the case. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline As this case stands, I would suggest binding mediation or binding RfC, I'm not seeing enough "misconduct" to warrant a lengthy arbitration case hearing. SirFozzie (talk) 09:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like the parties to answer whether they think a binding RfC would be a good venue to attempt a more enforced compromise. As mentioned in the statements, this is a relatively "simple" question in terms of the actual content that is the source of the dispute--and ArbCom wouldn't and couldn't be saying what version is correct or proper, so it would be a lot of time and energy that might be better spent at RfC rather than ArbCom. Alternatively, I'd like to see all parties provide more examples of serious behavioral problems. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline as this is a content dispute (which is now spilling out onto this case request), and such a dispute is best sorted via a RfC where it is agreed at the start that it will be closed by a named independent admin, and that the outcome will be binding on all users, and can only be changed by a further RfC. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline reports of transgressions should be brought to Arbitration Enforcement. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Risker (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motion regarding Jerusalem

The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what will be included in the article Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), with a specific emphasis on the lead section and how Jerusalem is described within the current, contested geopolitical reality. As with all decisions about content, the policies on reliable sourcing and neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions already authorised in this topic area. The discussion will be closed by three uninvolved, experienced editors, whose decision about the result of the discussion will be binding for three years from the adoption of this motion.

Enacted - Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As proposer. Adopted from the Muhammad images case. Jclemens (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. With two caveats, as there is no decision in the usual sense, the disc. sanctions should refer back to the I/P case; and 2) we should likely decide who the closers are going to be now so they can guide and supervise the RFC instead of being thrown a megabyte of text in a couple months. Courcelles 07:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PhilKnight (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SirFozzie (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Seems like the best way forward. Per Courcelles, we do need to decide on admins now rather than at the end, however I have no idea what mechanism we wish to use. To we open the floor to volunteers? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Also agree that we should call for volunteers now. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 17:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Worth trying. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yes, worth trying. I've made a small copy-edit, echoing Courcelles above. That is changing "under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision" to "under the discretionary sanctions already authorised in this topic area". Please revert if you disagree with this change,  Roger Davies talk 20:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. With the understanding that (unlike for the binding RFC in Muhammad images) we will appoint "supervising administrators" for the discussion soon after the implementation of this motion, not immediately before a decision about the result of the discussion is to be made. AGK [•] 21:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In reply to the suggestion that we order mediation or binding mediation: I have deep reservations about the "binding mediation" system, which has never helped to resolve a dispute, and I am opposed to compelling the Mediation Committee to mediate a dispute that they have already decided would not benefit from their services. AGK [•] 20:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I've given this a lot of thought, and I think this is the best solution. Ideally, mediation would have netted a good result, but I hold out little hope of successful mediation given the entrenched positions involved; further, I think it is far outside of our scope to pressure MedCom to accept a case they've already declined. Risker (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Fair enough. Kirill [talk] 00:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. The community should not be asked or directed by ArbCom - particularly in regard to content matters. The community are quite capable of opening a RfC by themselves. I have already offered to assist in closing an RfC as an independent admin, but I feel it would be inappropriate for me to do so if it were an ArbCom directed RfC. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If they're able to open an RFC by themselves... why are they here instead? Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't speak for the person who opened this case request, though I have noticed that sometimes people request ArbCom assistance earlier than unnecessary. As the community develops dispute resolution procedures which are open to all and can be managed in the open, collegiate manner which epitomizes Wikipedia, so the need diminishes to have a restricted and exclusive system such as ArbCom. I wish to encourage that, and in general I feel that the current Committee has also supported that view. Where the community can set up an RfC themselves I find it inappropriate for the Committee to set up a formal motion asking them to do that. More appropriate for us to simply reject this request with a note that the people involved can set up a RfC - which is what we normally do. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Recuse
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other
Arbitrator comments
I'll note that I originally opposed the wording that passed in the Muhammad Images case, and while I'm not repudiating my oppose in that case, and some of my objections to the wording apply equally well to this case, I'm also mindful that the wording and the ensuing process was accepted by the committee and the community, and thus prefer to repeat what has worked, rather than try and invent a substantially new remedy. Jclemens (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For Heim: The community have already set up provision for ensuring that a consensus decision is enforced without having to resort to ArbCom. An uninvolved admin can block a user who consistently and disruptively refuses to comply with a clear consensus decision or who disrupts a valid consensus seeking process. There is no need for either ArbCom or AE admins to get involved. As Wikipedia develops so we are ensuring that various forms of disruption can be dealt with. Wikipedia does have problems with content disputes, but as a community we are working on ways that we can directly solve them. I don't feel that having ArbCom - which is a last resort mechanism - stepping in at this stage is sending out the right message to support and encourage the community to continue working on solving content disputes. The Committee could have allowed the community the opportunity to resolve this - so far there have been talkpage discussions, and two failed attempt at mediation (which requires all parties to agree - something that is not always possible), but there has been no RfC. In a case like this where there is no user misconduct, and insufficient attempt to engage the Wikipedia community in resolving the issue has been made, coming to ArbCom is not appropriate. It's worth revisiting Wikipedia:Consensus to see the suggestions that are made, which have not been explored in this case, and to note that ArbCom is seen as the last resort. And so that it is clear that I am not shifting responsibility elsewhere, I had offered to assist in a RfC two days before this motion was proposed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=530044505"