Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 179: Line 179:
*:'''Decline''' for the reason above. However, "multi-editor dispute with good faith but potentially bad actions on both sides" is something that ends up at ArbCom because our processes often produce better results for this kind of dispute. So while this is not yet ready for ArbCom, in my opinion, I'm also not saying there needs to be years of community attempts to resolve conduct issues before it would be appropriate for ArbCom. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 19:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
*:'''Decline''' for the reason above. However, "multi-editor dispute with good faith but potentially bad actions on both sides" is something that ends up at ArbCom because our processes often produce better results for this kind of dispute. So while this is not yet ready for ArbCom, in my opinion, I'm also not saying there needs to be years of community attempts to resolve conduct issues before it would be appropriate for ArbCom. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 19:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
*I am open to a case here. Trying to [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS|LOCALCONSENSUS]] your way out of a larger RFC can be extremely disruptive. --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] <sup>[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]</sup> 20:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
*I am open to a case here. Trying to [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS|LOCALCONSENSUS]] your way out of a larger RFC can be extremely disruptive. --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] <sup>[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]</sup> 20:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
*:The MOS and the article titles policy are currently a contentious topic due to [[WP:ARBATC|ARBATC]]. At the same time, the community was able to deal with [[WP:NSPORTS2022|NSPORTS2022]] and its fallout without a case, but that took closers who wanted to close AfDs. -- [[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] <sup>[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]</sup> 18:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' at this time, only because the community should have an opportunity to address these issues before ArbCom accepts a case. While there have been a few noticeboard discussions within the scope of this issue, none appear to have substantively addressed the conduct issues. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 16:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' at this time, only because the community should have an opportunity to address these issues before ArbCom accepts a case. While there have been a few noticeboard discussions within the scope of this issue, none appear to have substantively addressed the conduct issues. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 16:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:34, 12 May 2024

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.

Shortcut

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions   10 May 2024 0/3/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal none none 11 December 2024
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions

Initiated by AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) at 02:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

NOTE: Additional requested moves have taken place where debates on WP:NCROY occurred. The below list encapsulates, in chronological order, the discussions the original poster (OP) thinks are relevant for this case request.

Statement by AndrewPeterT

Dear ArbCom,

I apologize in advance if my tone is improper. This is my first request.

At the core of this case request are behavioral concerns regarding how disagreements with WP:NCROY have been expressed. I come to ArbCom to request binding guidance on how to cease the constant user drama over how WP:NCROY should be applied. I also come to ArbCom to request binding guidance for all users on how to react when a personal interpretation of any guideline is rejected by community consensus.

I do not know if the linked discussions count as acceptable “lesser” methods of dispute resolution. However, over many months, at a plethora of venues, from talk pages to RMs and RfCs, bludgeoning, forum shopping, and even breaches of 5P4, among other concerns, have taken over conversations on WP:NCROY and left many users (myself included) exhausted.

I fail to see how any further discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI can address such frequent and widespread behavior. Moreover, given the persistence in how some users have acted when their opinions are rejected, I likewise do not believe the non-binding guidance of WP:DRN will address these frustrations, which go beyond content disagreements.

Now, I will be honest - I am guilty myself of having let my emotions take over and acted disruptively when arguing for my interpretation of WP:NCROY. Additionally, I have owned up to and apologized for these lapses in judgement: A, B, and C. Furthermore, I have even started RMs to implement the consensus of WP:NCROY despite my personal disagreements: D.

What does it say about the community when RMs go a few months without a formal closure, only to be taken straight to a WP:MR discussion with comments inappropriate for such a venue (as noted in E)? Above all, what does it say about the community when closers of RMs are hesitant to even participate in closing WP:NCROY-related discussions (for fear of starting heated and possibly WP:UNCIVIL discussions): F and G?

Finally, I apologize if I have invited users who do not wish to participate in this case request. The basis of my proposed parties are (as I see) the key participants of two recent MR discussions for Edward IV and David III of Tao. But these are far from all the users involved. And the fact that I am saying this is a major reason that I am filing this case request.

Thank you very much for your consideration. Other users are welcome to elaborate on what I have discussed. I request an extension of my word count to answer inquiries from other users.

Sincerely,

AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TimothyBlue

  • I've made my position clear, the behavior in closing this discussion was unacceptable. This is what needs to be examined. @AndrewPeterT: fails to mention any of this. The close needs to be vacated, reopened for discussion, then properly closed. Closing guidelines need to unambiguously reflect that the way this was closed was unacceptable. I haven't looked at the other discussions, but if they were closed in a similar fashion, the same should apply.  // Timothy :: talk  06:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huwmanbeing

I agree with AndrewPeterT that the current situation around NCROY and its related RMs is exhausting, and I think it's good to see what if anything can be done to improve matters, or at least make things smoother in future RM cycles.

I also agree (in a way) that IDONTLIKEIT or JDLI are a big part of the problem, but not in the way AndrewPeterT seems to suggest. Some participants in recent RMs have developed the bad habit of dismissing any and all opposing arguments as mere JDLI even when they explicitly and repeatedly appeal to policy, guidelines, title criteria, etc. This seems to stem from the belief that there is only a single valid interpretation of policy or application of guidelines: their own. This is tendentious, it shuts down productive discussion, and — if we want to get to a place of more healthy and less contentious debate — it needs to stop. (Q.v. wbm1058's statement.)

If it doesn't, then what we see at NCROY is almost guaranteed to continue:

  • Participants see any closure that doesn't favor their preferred position as not just disappointing but as genuinely baseless and intolerable.
  • Pestering closers with requests to undo their closures becomes a standard procedure that normally follows any RM, rather than a rare thing to be done only in instances of truly improper closures (which can still happen).
  • Dismissive claims of JDLI become ever more abundant, making participants feel like they're not being heard or that their views are not being fairly considered, which can further erode their confidence in the results.
  • Statements that any undesirable outcome will go to MR wind up scaring away potential closers.
  • The very purpose of RMs is undermined: why solicit feedback if there's only one valid view?

That last point is worth reiterating, since I've seen repeated suggestions that the RMs must close per NCROY regardless of any and all objections — and worse, that anyone who suggests otherwise is being disruptive. If that's so, then RMs are pointless and should be abolished entirely, and guidelines applied automatically to every article title via undiscussed moves. If it's not, then we need better recognition that there can be multiple valid views regarding how to interpret and apply our policies and guidelines.

I'll also offer a gentle suggestion: if a change to any guideline stirs extremely divided and contentious responses whenever editors seek to apply it, then it might be worth taking that as a sign that the guideline itself should be revisited and improved. As others have rightly noted, more editors have participated in these RMs than in the RfC that changed the guideline, and I don't think their views should count for nothing. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Compassionate727

Apologies if the following is not entirely coherent and/or cogent. I have not slept well in several days and am not functioning at my best.

I find my thoughts on this matter proceeding in a similar manner to Robert McClenon's. My first reaction upon seeing this late last night was that this is surely premature: this is a content dispute with no egregious conduct problems that I can recall. Many people are very unhappy about a relatively minor titling matter and the repeated litigation surrounding it is becoming a nuisance, but what's new? We're here because we enjoy sinking hundreds and thousands of hours into building a quality encyclopedia in one of the most exposed corners of the Internet; I think that makes all of us at least a little bit more obsessive and neurotic than the average person. Stuff like this is bound to happen (and does, regularly) and generally doesn't matter all that much, relatively speaking.

Having said that: the more I think about it, the more amenable I find myself to ArbCom doing… something. Guerillero is correct in his observation that many people who are aware of the global consensus have been attempting, in many cases explicitly, to oppose its implementation locally ([1][2][3][4][5]) rather than to amend the guideline. This has become quite noxious. Several related RM discussions have been listed at closure requests for months, suggesting that experienced closers are weary of dealing with them. I myself closed two of them, and partly through my own carelessness and partly because of this drama, both were challenged; I have little appetite to involve myself further.

I don't pay much attention to the world of contentious topics, but I understand situations like this to be what they are for. I know that AN can authorize contentious topics and deal with conduct disputes, but I don't anticipate AN being adequate here. AN is good for cases that are sufficiently simple or egregious to gather a critical mass of interest; I think the problems here are too subtle, and that either ArbCom will need to deal with them or the community will need to utterly exhaust itself of this business. The latter is probably actually possible in this case, but I doubt this should be considered preferable. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Born2cycle

Statement by Deb

My main concern is that controversial discussions are repeatedly being closed by non-admins, contrary to the guidelines. There is no incentive for contributors to try to join the discussion in a constructive way, since absolutely anyone is being allowed to close them against consensus, giving the excuse that "this set of arguments is better than the other" or "I'm only ensuring that the guidelines are followed", as though only one guideline has any weight. Given the huge range of different points raised on both sides during the discussion, I've been quite shocked at how so many people are simply accepting this as a justification. Deb (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Walrasiad

I was tagged in by a notice. I'm not quite sure what this is, never having participated in "arbitration" event before, and not sure what is being asked.

It seems evident that there are inconsistencies and incompatibilities between Wikipedia policies and the recently-changed NCROY guideline. So the relative weight given to them in closures of RMs are natural points of contention. Walrasiad (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HouseBlaster

I probably should be listed as a proposed party, as I initiated both the Nicholas II and Edward IV/Edward V RMs.

I think this filing is premature. There have been many content discussions on this matter, but I have not seen many conduct discussions on this matter. There is a problem, but I don't think we are at the point where this an ArbCom problem. I think a referral to AN—as unappealing as that sounds—is the next thing to try here. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Thryduulf: venue is everything. In this case, you can't change guidelines at a specific article's talk page, no matter how many people show up to the discussion. (Of course, editors might raise a reason to IAR specific to that page at a talk page, with the caveat you laid out at Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is for uncommon situations.) If the editors wish to change the guideline, WT:NCROY is the place to do that. Not (e.g.) Talk:Edward V.

    If ArbCom does not take this case—which I still believe is the best course of action, even if I completely understand why people would think otherwise—I do think a statement saying (essentially) go to AN and/or WT:NCROY, but if there are further problems go directly to ARC (do not pass go, do not collect $200) would be helpful. As others have said, there is a problem of a type which historically ends up at ArbCom, but I think the non-ArbCom community should at least try to solve it first. And I think we have a better chance at coming up with a solution if we know ArbCom is the alternative. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Royalty Naming)

This is a very poorly stated, rambling Request for Arbitration, but there may actually be a valid issue for the ArbCom to answer. My first thought was that maybe the ArbCom ought to warn the filing editor, or ought to consider whether to impose sanctions for frivolous litigation or vexatious litigation. My first thought was mistaken. The filing editor does have a valid question. The question is: Should the naming of articles on royalty be designated as a contentious topic? The filing editor lists a very large number of Requested Moves involving royalty. Maybe most of these requests are tendentious. If so, the contentious topic procedure should be used to topic-ban editors from troublesome requested moves. Alternatively, some other sort of disruptive editing may be interfering with the resolution of these naming discussions.

There is an issue for ArbCom to consider, which is whether the naming of articles on royalty is a contentious topic. ArbCom should open either a case or a discussion. The filing editor has identified a problem that ArbCom should address. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-Up Comment

User:HouseBlaster raises an interesting point, which is that the community has had (too) many content discussions concerning the naming of articles on royalty, but has not attempted to discuss the conduct issues that cause the content issues to be discussed repetitively. This raises the question of whether ArbCom can impose contentious topic rules before the community tries to deal with conduct. It also raises the related question of whether the community can define a contentious topic that can be dealt with in the same way as an ArbCom-defined contentious topic. I have seen the second question discussed, and do not recall seeing the second question answered. Can the community establish a contentious topic?

If the community can establish that royalty names are a contentious topic, then I mostly agree with HouseBlaster. If so, a two-part dispute can be sent to the community at WP:AN. The first part is that, if anyone wants to contest the closure of the autumn RFC, they can do so at WP:AN, which will probably confirm it. The second part is that the community can deal with the conduct issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Crouch, Swale

The consensus at the autumn RFC is quite clear and as noted it brings the guideline inline with most other titles of being concise unless disambiguation is needed. Yes I understand the change in the guideline is controversial but given as noted it brings it inline with the general titling policy thus I don't think the change can be said to be controversial enough to ignore it in RMs especially when there isn't an overwhelming majority or !votes against it, see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Disclosure; I did not participate in the autumn RFC but I have participated in some of the recent RMs and MRs. I can be added as a party if people want to add me. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jessintime

@Primefac: the issue isn't that people are starting a bunch of move requests. The problem is that certain editors are using those move requests (and move reviews) to re-argue a previously decided request for comment. (I think I've participated in some of these discussions, so that might make me involved FWIW). ~~ Jessintime (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the statement below that "The first step to settling the content aspect here should be to assess whether the consensus of commenters in the NCROY RFC matches the consensus of the community at large" I would note the RFC had two dozen participants in it. That is more participants than any of the requested moves that have taken place since then. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

I closed the RM noted as anticipating a move review, based on multiple other move reviews being initiated when the close didn't go the way one or other side wanted. It's clear to me that there are conduct issues, I had cause to single out Born2Cycle as the worst but far from only offender in that RM for example. Multiple of the other parties are familiar from other page titling disputes too, which have failed to be resolved at AN(I), so I strongly suspect there will be an arbitration case around the topic of page titles and/or other manual of style issues at some point but I don't think this specific dispute is the right framing for that. The first step to settling the content aspect here should be to assess whether the consensus of commenters in the NCROY RFC matches the consensus of the community at large, and if not what to do about that. Those are not questions for arbcom. Thryduulf (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jessintime My comment was not presupposing the outcome of the assessment either way - and you should not be attempting to do that either. It's worth noting that numbers are not everything - if (I've not looked) the contentious RFCs are largely different people to each other that's very different to the same people repeatedly re-litigating the RFC in multiple venues. Thryduulf (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After leaving that comment I got curious. There were by my count 22 unique editors who left substantive comments in the RFC. In the first post-RFC requested move listed in the case request 30 unique editors left unique comments (only 8 of whom participated in the RFC). Over the first 5 post-RFC RMs listed above, there were 59 unique editors who left substantive comments - 47 who did not participate in the RFC and 12 who did. Of the 47, only 14 participated in more than 1 of the 5 RMs, 6 of the 12 participated in more than one of the RMs. Based on this assessment, I don't think Guerillero's characterisation is accurate. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably stress that in all the above figures I have made no distinction between those supporting or opposing the guideline and/or its applicability to a given article and both views have been expressed by those commenting on one or more RMs but not the RFC. At least one editor has supported moving one article to the title suggested by NCROY and opposed it in relation to another. Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseBlaster: Indeed, the guideline cannot be changed at individual RMs, regardless of numbers, but they are an illustration that Jessintime's point is incorrect and the RFC is not necessarily as representative as they imply. Your mention of WP:IARUNCOMMON is apt though - so many people (apparently independently) arguing that given pages are exceptions to the rule is a strong indication that it is perhaps the rule rather than them that is wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 10:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AirshipJungleman29

I believe Guerillero's comment is insightful. Looking at the poor opening statement of the case filer, one might hastily conclude that this is all bark and no bite, but there have been serious underlying issues of poor conduct in this topic area; most notably, as Jessintime notes, relitigation policy discussions for discussions on articles subject to the policy has been extremely common. If ArbCom choose to decline this case as premature, I would be shocked if it didn't make its way back after months of wasting time with noticeboards and talk pages and deletion/move/administrative action reviews. If there is a chance we will end with one of those contentious topics whose necessity will be bewildering in a decade's time, better now than in a year's time. I would prefer not to drive away valuable editors because of an increasingly toxic part of the project. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel Quinlan

I'm in general agreement with Thryduulf. Opening a case on this topic seems premature. The current implementation of WP:NCROY is unfortunately too open to personal interpretation and too vague to implement. Expecting everyone to come to the same exact conclusions with such an unclear guideline is unrealistic. It also seems like it may be unrepresentative of community consensus given the results in so many RMs. Designating the area as a contentious topic would not solve those fundamental problems. What is needed is a broader and more rigorous attempt to find and define consensus. Enforcing contentious topics procedures for this topic area would be exceedingly difficult given the current state of consensus and the guideline. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by wbm1058

In a 2012 case, "Article titles and capitalisation", the Arbitration Committee warned Born2cycle that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors. Born2cycle (block log) was indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing in March 2018 per this. I unblocked him after nearly 3 months had passed: a nearly 3-month first block is of sufficient duration, and is well beyond the norm for a first block for tendentious editing, and have been generally pleased at his improved behavior since, but am concerned that he is relapsing. HERE, on February 14, I see another editor expressing concern about tendentious comments in an RM discussion. In the currently longest running RM, open a whopping 116 days and counting, I see two "Notes to closer", the second one pointing to two other discussions, one of which was endorsed, and one of which was overturned – both in favor of the naming convention that B2C supports. I read this as a not-too-subtle threat that any close that doesn't go his way will be taken to move review. A quick glance at that discussion, where the request has plenty of opposition, gives me the initial impression that it should close as no consensus, which would result in the page title remaining the same. But any potential closing administrator should realize that the next step will be another tendentious discussion at "move review", where the closing admin risks the embarrassment of watching their close get overturned. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by QEDK

I don't think this warrants a case yet, in particular the proposer has failed to show a case where the community has repeatedly failed to arrive at a conclusion w.r.t. the conduct of the users involved. Generally agree with what @Thryduulf: said. --qedk (t 愛 c) 13:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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.

Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions: Clerk notes

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

Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/3/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Just noting for the record that I closed the first RM listed, but I do not see that as enough to merit any sort of recusal. Primefac (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Decline per Barkeep49. Primefac (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a thought, 15 RMs started by 10 different users across at least as many pages does not strike me as particularly tendentious or intentionally disruptive. Primefac (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert McClenon, regarding your latest comment: see WP:GS. Primefac (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absent further evidence from the community, I'm inclined to decline this request largely for the reasons that House Blaster lays out. The conduct part of this hasn't gone through the community channels yet which would make ArbCom intervention premature at this time. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Decline for the reason above. However, "multi-editor dispute with good faith but potentially bad actions on both sides" is something that ends up at ArbCom because our processes often produce better results for this kind of dispute. So while this is not yet ready for ArbCom, in my opinion, I'm also not saying there needs to be years of community attempts to resolve conduct issues before it would be appropriate for ArbCom. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am open to a case here. Trying to LOCALCONSENSUS your way out of a larger RFC can be extremely disruptive. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The MOS and the article titles policy are currently a contentious topic due to ARBATC. At the same time, the community was able to deal with NSPORTS2022 and its fallout without a case, but that took closers who wanted to close AfDs. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline at this time, only because the community should have an opportunity to address these issues before ArbCom accepts a case. While there have been a few noticeboard discussions within the scope of this issue, none appear to have substantively addressed the conduct issues. - Aoidh (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=1223524246"