Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Requests for arbitration: Removing case as mathematically impossible to be accepted, per request of another clerk |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<br clear="all"/> |
<br clear="all"/> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}} |
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}} |
||
==Ethnic Advocacy and Editor COI== |
|||
'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Wittsun|Wittsun]] ([[User talk:Wittsun|talk]]) '''at''' 12:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
=== Involved parties === |
|||
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> |
|||
*{{userlinks|Wittsun}}, ''filing party'' |
|||
*{{userlinks|Stonemason89}} |
|||
*{{userlinks|FisherQueen}} |
|||
*{{userlinks|Black Kite}} |
|||
<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. --> |
|||
;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request |
|||
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stonemason89&diff=prev&oldid=374342119] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FisherQueen&diff=prev&oldid=374342420] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Kite&diff=374343233&oldid=374265866] |
|||
;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried |
|||
<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration --> |
|||
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=373254035 |
|||
=== Statement by Wittsun === |
|||
Ethnic issues polarise into opposing self-interested factions and camps. In my case, unsympathetic editors and admins with [[COI]] issues came out of the woodwork and per [[WP:NOT#DEM]] blocked me from editing ethnic issues. My feeling however is that the gang of editors with [[COI]] issues should be blocked themselves or at least refrain from their activism on issues that they cannot deal with impartially. The editors in question should be frank with themselves and others regarding their racial, religious, social, political and advocacy biases and refrain from censoring contributions that provide verifiable and referenced information that does not conform to their ideological or self-interested worldview. For this reason I want the block lifted and I STRONGLY encourage the voting admins to be introspective with themselves and vote RECLUSE if there are any doubts. --[[User:Wittsun|Wittsun]] ([[User talk:Wittsun|talk]]) 13:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:@Steve Smith: You are pigeon-holing. Firstly where do you get the 'racism' label? and secondly my contention was that 'anti-racist' advocates should not jump on an issue just because it doesn't suit them (eg reverse discrimination or hate crimes against white people). --[[User:Wittsun|Wittsun]] ([[User talk:Wittsun|talk]]) 17:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::@Steve Smith: 'Anti-racist' is the other ideological extreme. Between the two extremes is where you find impartiality and a neutral point of view. The problem with mob decisions is that some editors are prone to take the 'perceived majority route' and go along with a bad decision. It is easy enough to prove the COI of most of the editors involved. One of them is a proud supporter of the [[4th_International]]![http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RolandR] --[[User:Wittsun|Wittsun]] ([[User talk:Wittsun|talk]]) 18:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::Steve Smith: What is racist about my contributions to 'Hate Crimes Against White People' and 'Reverse Discrimination'? Or is 'racism' in your fringe opinion a one-way street?--[[User:Wittsun|Wittsun]] ([[User talk:Wittsun|talk]]) 09:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:@Coren: Impartial?[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence/Proposed_decision#Self-published_sources] --[[User:Wittsun|Wittsun]] ([[User talk:Wittsun|talk]]) 17:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:@SirFozzie: A surprising ultimatum. What arguments did you find compelling?--[[User:Wittsun|Wittsun]] ([[User talk:Wittsun|talk]]) 18:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:@Roger Davies: How so routine? How so appropriate?--[[User:Wittsun|Wittsun]] ([[User talk:Wittsun|talk]]) 19:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:@Carcharoth: If adding referenced information and balance to poorly written articles is the 'problem' you are referring to, then yes I suppose 'the problem' will resume once this draconian display of intolerance and bigotry has expired in 6 months time.--[[User:Wittsun|Wittsun]] ([[User talk:Wittsun|talk]]) 09:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by {Party 2} === |
|||
=== Statement by {Party 3} === |
|||
=== Clerk notes === |
|||
:''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.'' |
|||
=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0) === |
|||
*'''Decline''' - the topic ban seems to have been duly and appropriately (to say nothing of overwhelmingly) imposed, and the allegations of conflict-of-interest seem to amount to "people who don't like racism should not participate in race-related discussions". [[User:Steve Smith|Steve Smith]] ([[User talk:Steve Smith|talk]]) 15:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:*I got "don't like racism" from "anti-racist", which is the term that you used; "racism" is the noun form of the adjective "racist" (except where the noun is a person, in which case the noun is also "racist"). In any event, you've still said nothing that points to a conflict-of-interest among any of the eight people involved in your topic-ban, let alone enough of them to call the ban itself into question. [[User:Steve Smith|Steve Smith]] ([[User talk:Steve Smith|talk]]) 18:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::*You've demonstrated that one of the eight people involved in your topic ban is a member of an organization that, besides its more heavily emphasized tenets, is against racism (or "anti-racist", if you prefer). Opposition to racism is a majority point of view; we cannot possibly disqualify all anti-racists from taking part in this sort of discussion; the idea is absurd. I'm not sure you appreciate just how [[WP:FRINGE|fringe]] a perspective you're espousing, here, but I'm also not sure it's relevant: the ban discussion was appropriate in process and, in my view, probably appropriate in outcome. That is all I have to say on this matter. [[User:Steve Smith|Steve Smith]] ([[User talk:Steve Smith|talk]]) 00:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Decline'''; I see nothing wrong with the manner the sanction was discussed and imposed, or with its nature, and I see no reason for the Committee to intervene in this matter. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 15:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Decline''' - The topic ban was discussed and imposed properly. I endorse that discussion, and its result. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 16:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Decline''': Unexceptional, routine and appropriate topic ban, in my view. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 18:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:@Wittsun: per my colleagues, really. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 07:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::I find myself agreeing with Carcharoth's analysis and would support a motion changing the topic ban to indefinite. The topic ban would only be set aside once the editor addresses where they've been going wrong. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 07:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Decline''' - as this is only a six-month topic ban, this does not warrant a case, though a review of whether the topic ban was carried out properly is a reasonable request and I've provided that here in the following comments: <blockquote>The full topic ban discussion (which was not linked to in the request) is archived [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive215#Propose_Topic_Ban|here]]. It was proposed at the administrators' noticeboard (WP:AN) which is a satisfactory location. The proposer linked to two previous threads to provide background (at the Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard and the administrators' incident noticeboard). While an alternative possibility might have been to have a user request for comment, it seems reasonable here to go straight to an AN topic ban proposal. The topic ban was proposed at 20:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC) and closed around 13:56, 13 July 2010. A total of 10 editors (including the editor proposed for a topic ban and the proposer) commented over a period of 3 days and 17 hours. The time period of the discussion is shorter than I would have liked (in the absence of a previous request for comment, one possibility is allowing topic ban discussions to run for as long as a request for comment would run). The editor proposed for the topic ban was able to participate in the discussion, so no problems there. I haven't yet been able to evaluate whether the discussion had input from both those familiar with the situation and independent observers providing new opinions, so I will ask the closing administrator if he assessed that aspect of the discussion, and I will also suggest that he add the topic ban to [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions]]. Other than that, this all looks to be in order. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 04:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)</blockquote> Looking at the bigger picture though, I doubt this topic ban will actually resolve anything as the comments made here by the now topic-banned editor indicate that the same problems will resume in 6 months time. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 04:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC) <small>Update: reply received from Black Kite [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carcharoth&diff=374450342&oldid=373977709 here].</small> |
|||
Revision as of 15:17, 20 July 2010
Arbitration Committee proceedings
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
[edit]
Open cases
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
| Case name | Closed |
|---|---|
| Conflict of interest management | 13 Apr 2024 |
| Mzajac | 7 May 2024 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing | none | (orig. case) | 30 April 2024 |
| Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 | none | (orig. case) | 8 May 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Requests for arbitration
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. 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. This page is for statements, not discussion.
|