Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:44, 25 September 2008

WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:RfA Review (WP:RREV).

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
Arbitrator motions
Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024
~~Mzajac~~	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	—	Case suspended

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Clarifications and other requests

Shortcuts

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024
~~Mzajac~~	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	—	Case suspended

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Request for clarification : Topic bans

Can a page, perhaps WP:Topic bans or the like, be created to coherently set these out? They don't appear to have any coherent explanation, that can be linked to. It is my impression that admins, following appropriate discussion, are also authorised to impose topic bans, in lieu of a block, so having a coherent explanation that can be linked to would be helpful, and it probably shouldn't be an arbcom-specific page - though I'd suggest the Arbcom are in a good position to start it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MBisanz

Aren't topic bans already well covered in Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions and Wikipedia:General sanctions? Can we not create more lists of things Arbcom has done that people don't read anyway?

We also have the very useful {{Uw-sanctions}}, {{Article probation}}, and {{Sanctions}} and the various templates in Category:Wikipedia Arbitration enforcement templates as tools for this sort of enforcement. MBisanz ^talk 17:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Caulde

Here's the statement I made at my last topic ban (when I was an administrator) "For continued and sustained disruption on Kosovo-related articles during the past month or so, you are now banned from all Kosovo-related articles for 14 days. This ban extends to any talk pages of any major Example-related talk page or user talk pages where incivility is displayed, especially Talk:Example and User talk:Example. If you breach this ban by making edits in these areas, you could face a block of an then-to-be determined length, or renewed sanctions. You are however, free to make edits anywhere else on Wikipedia. Some comments that have been used to provide a basis for this block are: (1, 2, 3 and 4). This topic-ban has been logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Example." As I wrote it then, in response to a request to have it reduced, "Topic banning in general is to provide all contributors with an equal chance to discuss how an article may be modified, by removing users who are either disruptive or messing around intentionally. [Reminding them] that now [they] have had warning and community feedback on [their] actions so far, that [their] behaviour must not violate any policies here on Wikipedia: namely not to make any personal attacks, or to impose restrictions on other users contributions, to remain civil during discussion, make sure all contributions don't come from specifically [their] point of view and represent interests of the article, assuming good faith (for example when someone makes a mistake, it's not always intentional) and not to revert anyone else's changes on more than three occasions." That is my interpretation anyway. Cau lde 17:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

This is easy. Wikipedia:Topic ban is now a redirect to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Types of restrictions. --bainer (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Bainer. I've already clarified this point a few days ago here. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 02:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification : Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

Just another reminder that this page continues to lack the evidence page. You did say you'd get to that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MBisanz, that's very well, but, if it's who I presume it was, he had explicitly drawn the connection for months, gave a stated reason for the change that only involved his signature, and only sought to conceal the connection in retrospect well after I linked. I don't want to reveal too much information, obviously, so I'll say no more. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(to FloNight, mv from arb section)...**Is this to do with linking to the request for comment or whatever it was under one user's old username? Because said username did not appear to have any apparent real-world connection, and that the change happened was freely stated in several places, including a publicly-filed request for the change that mentioned no issues with the previous name. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by east718

I took a quick look at the deleted history of the page and don't think restoration would be prudent. in addition to the breach of your own privacy by Anthon01 (talk · contribs) (which as far as I'm aware has been oversighted), there is also an "outing" of another contributor present in a non-trivial amount of revisions. The page serves little purpose now for dispute resolution or maintaining the institutional memory around here, so it's not really worth taking the time to sanitize the history and make it public again. east718 // talk // email // 22:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MBisanz

I've also reviewed the deleted page, independent of east718, and the outing of another contributor jumped out of the page nearly as soon as I started reading it. Ignoring GFDL concerns, I do not see how a coherent page version, let alone a page history, could be formed without creating an odd looking set of evidence. Since the case is well over, and all that stuff is water under a bridge, I don't see a need to try and piece the past together. MBisanz ^talk 22:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to quote from the WP:OUTING policy:

It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives.

I am not aware of the facts and circumstances of that editor being renamed, but from the context of the deletion, comments then, and subsequent comments, it appears that quote may be relevant. MBisanz ^talk 14:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

The problem was tit-for-tat "outing" - in which you the requester was involved, I should say - going back to very early revisions of the page which would be almost impossible to clean up. The deleted revisions may be accessed if necessary for any future arbitration issue. --bainer (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not having the evidence readily available is not ideal but necessary in this instance, at least for now. The task of making the evidence viewable to all users in is some form will be difficult and time consuming. It will remain on my to-do-list, but do not expect it to be done anytime soon as it is a low priority item compared to my many other Committee tasks. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification : Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

EconomicsGuy II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by EconomicsGuy II

To help clarify to what degree the ruling applies to articles submitted to Articles for Deletion I'm filing this request for clarification.

The ruling in the Badlydrawnjeff case says:

(Principle 4) Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy. This deletion may be contested via the usual means; however, the article must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so. The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy.

I would like the arbitrators to clarify if this means that:

Administrators are not required to delete such articles but are merely entitled to do so even when closing Articles for Deletion debates
Articles that would otherwise qualify for speedy deletion per this principle may be submitted to Articles for Deletion instead. Specifically, if an article is submitted to Articles for Deletion before an administrator spotted it and invoked the ruling the ruling no longer applies but is superceded by deletion policy?
Consensus on Articles for Deletion is enough to satisfy the consensus requirement and effectively change the burden of proof back to the party concerned about BLP violations since the burden of proof on Articles for Deletion is on the person wishing to have the article deleted

The ruling also says:

(Principle 3) In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." In practice, this means that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.

I would like the arbitrators to clarify if this means that:

Material removed even by non-administrators in good standing may be reincluded by anyone, specifically non-administrators, as long as this is done per consensus on Articles for Deletion even before the debate has been closed
The burden of proof when such an article is submitted to review on Articles for Deletion is on the person making the deletion rather than the person who reincludes the disputed material thus effectively changing the burden of proof back despite Principle 4 as cited above.

Thanks.

The article that prompted this is Thomas Muthee but I've seen this happen before. To JzG: I'm not asking for that. Please re-read what I said. I'm asking to what degree the arbitrators believe that normal deletion process can be applied to BLPs that happen to end up at AfD rather than be speedy deleted per the ruling. If deletion policy takes precedence over the ruling then the ruling can be gamed by taking the article to AfD where the requirements for consensus are less strict because the burden of proof has then been reversed back. I find that very problematic because according to the ruling the burden of proof is on the party that wants the article kept. Are you telling me that "I see no BLP problems" is a sufficient argument to establish such a consensus? If so I think I've overestimated the usefulness of this ruling. EconomicsGuy (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kirill and Flonight. That clarified it for me. I was not aware of the Footnoted quotes ruling. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more question or actually two questions. Per your responses below do you believe that such AfDs should be closed early by non-administrators[1] and would you please explain how this edit history is possible if administrators are expected to keep disputed material out of BLPs and sanction those who keep reinserting it. It seems to me that the ruling is a lot of words that aren't being enforced. EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

I don't see any ambiguity here. The principle does not limit the venues at which a deletion may be made, the presumption is always that contentious material be excluded until there is clear consensus to include (that burden of proof exists for all disputed content, anything else would be a POV-pusher's charter). The only unclear thing here is that the requester seems to be asking for a reversal of the normal burden of proof at DRV, solely for BLPs, which seems perverse to me - contentious BLPs should be more likely to be undeleted? Why would we do that?

I have no idea which article prompted this question, it might be helpful to know which one. Guy (Help!) 08:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Scott MacDonald

The burden of proof when such an article is submitted to review on Articles for Deletion is on the person making the deletion rather than the person who reincludes the disputed material thus effectively changing the burden of proof back despite Principle 4 as cited above.

Em? No. Need we say more?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Portions of the Badlydrawnjeff ruling have been superseded by the broader enforcement provisions of the Footnoted quotes ruling. Absent an unambiguous, active community consensus to restore disputed BLP material (as provided for in the latter decision), administrators are authorized and expected to ensure that it remains removed, regardless of whether the article happens to be undergoing AFD. Kirill ^(prof) 09:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kirill that the BLP policy applies on every page in Wikipedia-English including articles up for Afd and where the deletion discussion is happening. The intent of the BLP policy is to modify the application of every policy on Wikipedia as it relates to content about living people. In the case of Afds, this change means that the past practice of keeping content on site if there is not consensus to delete is altered. In the short term, deletion (or blanking) is needed in some instances for articles about notable people as the content is researched for accuracy or reliable sources are found. For articles about living people the past default practice of "Keep" for notable people does not work unless the content is changed so it complies with our core polices and the BLP policy. This applies during the deletion discussion if an user raises concerns about the content and cites the BLP policy or the Footnted quotes case ruling. I hope that helps. FloNight ♥♥♥ 10:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Kirill and FloNight. As a side note, the mentality of dealing with BLP articles the way tabloids do has to change. That is not really what Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, is about or should encourage. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 03:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Gazimoff (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Gazimoff

I am requesting clarification from Arbcomm regarding the case above. This discussion may appear to be slightly premature, but I feel that it is appropriate to raise a request for clarification in order to minimise the potential for further disruption. TTN has been involved in two Arbcomm cases relating to content disputes. As a result of those cases, TTN has been subject to the following remedies.

The remedy from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters stated the following:

The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute.

The remedy from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 stated the following:

TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question. They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute

TTN was since blocked twice for violating these restrictions as recorded here The restriction placed upon him lapsed without extension on September 10th, 2008. Since that date, TTN has created a high number of deletion discussions. The concern here is not about the articles, templates and so on being listed for deletion. It is more about the high volume of content being listed for deletion in a short space of time only days after a lapsed editing restriction prohibiting this behaviour. Such action can potentialy stretch any cleanup team a wikiproject may have over a large number of articles, potentially reducing the quality of debate that can occur and leaving TTN open to criticisms of working against the wikiprojects involved.

The requests for clarification are as follows:

Does Arbcomm feel that the editing restrictions listed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 met their required objective in encouraging good working practice from a long-term contributor?
How does Arbcomm regard the large number of deletion discussions that have been started in relation to the encouragement "to work collaboratively and constructively" as stated at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters
Would Arbcomm have any further reccomendations in this area in order to minimise further disruption?

I appreciate that Arbcomm are limited in resource, and hope that by presenting this concern early and cleanly, clarification can be reached with minimal impact on the project.

Statement by GRBerry

Related WP:AE threads are currently at (reverse chronological order):

There have also been plenty of AN, ANI, et cetera threads involving many parties. I conclude that remedy #2 "The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question. They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute." has failed. GRBerry 18:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the threads with Eusebeus's names in them were not selected for inclusion because I have any concerns about his actions, they were included to help the committee realize that the "all get together and sing Kumbaya" recomendation of remedy is not working and not going to work. In the archive 26 thread, DGG observed "The disputed cases are about minor characters in the most important fictional works, such as plays by Shakespeare, and even major characters in relatively unimportant works." No consensus is going to form that draws a hard and fast line with no grey zone ("no character articles" or "if the work can have an article, every character can have there own article" are both thoroughly rejected by the community. So long as there is a grey zone, there will be disagreements and need for community discussion. The committee should only make sure that reasonable conduct bounds are drawn and enforced for that discussion. GRBerry 03:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by sgeureka

One way to look at it: TTN is quickly destroying the 'pedia with his quick AfDs. Do something about it.

Another way to look at it: Crappy fiction articles get created (in good faith) faster than they can be dealt with through what-some-would-label "recommended" channels. Cleanup templates get ignored for months (usually because the articles cannot be improved), merge proposals for popular yet crappy articles often get shot down through local fan consensus or take forever (by which time tons of new crappy articles have been created), and bold redirects or bold mergers for popular yet crappy articles get reverted and have demonstratedly already led to severe arbcom restrictions when someone tried to enforce to leave the redirects in place. AfDs however, especially for long-time cleanup-tagged articles, get quick results with community consensus. Not perfect but accomplishes the goal in the absense of other workable solutions.

Summa summarum: Leave dedicated editors at least one tool to keep up with the desperately needed cleanup. Or: fight the source of the problem (creation of crappy and unimprovable articles), not the symptom (AfDs). – sgeureka ^t•c 19:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by A Man In Black

Bearing in mind where my obvious biases are, what's the harm in a bunch of AFDs of articles that will all either be deleted or merged? TTN was censured for edit warring, not cleanup. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fut.Perf

TTN is right. Censoring him was wrong from the start. It really is as simple as that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DGG (talk)

Based on a comment by TTN on my talk page, [2], I suggested there that the AfDs are being brought deliberately because of TTN's knowledge that they will not be approved at the article talk page. This is essentially the same behavior that the arb com was first asked to address--as it is in essence continuing, with afds showing no previous attempt to discuss, in clear violation of deletion policy, the restriction should be made permanent. There are a great many articles needing redirection , merge, or deletion. There are are a great many other editors to propose them. DGG (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PhilKnight - responding to DGG

In situations where an episode or character article doesn't comply with notability guidelines, the article talk page is invariably dominated by editors who are vehemently opposed to any merge, let alone deletion. The problem is one of a local consensus attempting to override policy and guidelines. The obvious solution is to take the article to AfD. Accordingly, what DGG describes as a "clear violation of deletion policy" is normal practice for this topic area. Also, looking at WP:DELETION, there doesn't appear to be any requirement to start discussion before nominating the article. Obviously, it's good practice to notify the article creator, and perhaps even some of the other editors, however for deletion (as opposed to deletion review), I can't see any requirement for prior discussion.

Statement by Protonk

So long as non-community enforced pathways for dealing with marginal and sub-marginal fictional articles result in intractable stalemates and so long as the community cannot agree on a daughter notability guideline to deal clearly and appropriately with these articles, we will have situations like this. AfD is a perfectly acceptable route for dealing with articles which do not meet our inclusion guidelines. Since we have no real agreed upon guidelines that are binding concerning lists of characters, episodes and other daughter articles, AfD may be the preferred route. We may wish, in an abstract sense, that editors discussed improvement, then proposed mergers, then discussed why the merger didn't gain consensus, then prod, then nominate for deletion, but any editor who learns from past experiences will be tempted to skip steps. I see this as a policy issue that needs to be worked out by the community. We don't have an agreed upon way to treat characters and episodes (as it were), so we have problems like this. Fix that policy issue and we have fixed most of the problem.

Statement by User:Randomran

We need to assume good faith, rather than assuming that TTN is somehow on a vengeful mission after being locked away for 6 months. TTN got himself in trouble when he WP:BOLDly redirected pages en masse. He's learned his lesson, and is now soliciting the feedback of neutral Wikipedians in AFD. "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia’s article guidelines and policies." I do not echo his support for deletion in each and every case, but he's using the process as it is designed. Anything else is a discussion of actual content: discussions that TTN has initiated, and cannot unilaterally decide. That's how Wikipedia works.

That said, I might advise TTN that he could generate more good will by nominating AFDs at more scattered intervals. He hasn't broken any policy, consensus, or arbitration decision. But this does needlessly inflame the inclusionists. The WP:DEADLINE applies as much to clean-up as it does to anything else: what's your hurry? Randomran (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RyanGerbil10

So User:X was told not to do Y for Z period of time, X did not do Y until after Z (as asked), and now we're back at ArbCom? Seems to defeat the purpose if you ask me. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 19:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Norse Am Legend

Anyone's allowed to make statements here, right? What TTN is doing is similar to a police officer strongly and swiftly enforcing the law on any potential criminal that he sees or hears of. Is this acting in good faith? Possibly. Is he doing anything technically wrong? Apparently not. However, when every car in a five mile radius has a ticket on the windshield and the local courthouse is filled to the brim with people paying fines and undergoing trials, many people start to get really annoyed. Going on deletion crusades to "fully purge the video game and anime and manga character categories" and the like isn't something that should be fully endorsed without question - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ThuranX

Like many others here, I support TTN's efforts. As touched upon above, and seen in the AfDs in question, the local fan support serves to obstruct any management of a number of fiction related articles. The fans hide behind inclusionist thinking and essays, and are often good at mimicking the talking points, but they do a disservice to the real inclusionists by their actions. TTN's actions are commendable, as they make hte project stronger and more encyclopedic. ThuranX (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Kww

People need to stop expecting TTN to get blocked at the drop of a hat for making a legitimate effort to clean up a large section of Wikipedia. I'm sure he noticed articles that needed deletion during his 6 month restriction, so it looks a bit like a floodgate letting loose. However, looking over the articles that he has nominated, it looks like he is showing excellent judgement about what articles are essentially unsalvageable. As to the idea that one should discuss deletion on the talk page of an article first? Laughable. Articles essentially never get deleted by discussion on an article's talk page, because an article's talk page is watched virtually exclusively by people that think the article is interesting, and, by extension, desire to keep it around.

If this becomes as bad as it has before, it may become desirable to start having negative consequences for bringing unfounded cases to Arbcom's attention.Kww (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:casliber

Again, we have the editors whose opinions on the material are commenting the same way as before. Again, we have TTN who has absolutely no belief he has done anything wrong. Again we have no scope for negotiation but TTN's actions like a self-appointed wikipoliceman or a bull-in-a-chinashop behaviour which continues to aggravate editors whose opinions differ from his own. This does nothing for morale of the community. Again, I feel that editing solely to reduce content without contributing a jot of sourcing or material is tendentious or disruptive. Of course I am not impartial, but then again neither are teh owners of most statements here. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:erachima

I'll grant that the remedy's failed, but it hasn't failed due to TTN. The reason for the ongoing problem here is the inability of the community to agree on a reasonable wording for WP:FICT despite massively numerous attempts to do so. Some of these attempts got very close to attaining guideline status, but all ultimately failed due to (essentially equal) opposition from the far inclusionist and far deletionist camps. In the absence of relevant guidelines, there's nothing to do but run individual pages through AfD and see what falls out, and the disruption rising around TTN is essentially a case of killing the messenger. If any new ArbCom ruling does come out of this request for clarification, I'm hoping that it targets the root problem of how to construct a consensus guideline when individuals on both sides refuse to compromise. --erachima talk 02:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Comment, I'm aware of this request. I've briefly looked into the situation. I'm not seeing a problem that needs Committee action at this time. The Community needs to deal with the content policy issues involved, not ArbCom. I do not see any user conduct that approaches disruption. I urge all involved parties to listen to the input of other users. Before giving input to other users or taking an action, try putting yourself in the other persons shoes and thinking about how what you do and say will be received. Be understanding that other people have different views, and that they want what is best for Wikipedia, the same as you do. FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To extend a bit on what FloNight has already said... A simpler approach would be AfD-listing a few articles (a dozen or less?) and wait and see what would be the outcome. You can then, go on from there either way... stop and discuss the whole issue or list the rest. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 01:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- @ Erachima. Inject new blood. Involve new uninvolved users (third opinions). Try to contact random users through their talk pages and get their opinions. Get out from that vicious circle of discussing it over and over again using the same arguments. Neither side seems to accept or understand the concerns of the other. Welcome new ideas and opinions. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 02:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 20:44, 25 September 2008

Current requests

Clarifications and other requests

Current requests

Request for clarification : Topic bans

Comment by MBisanz

Comment by Caulde

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request for clarification : Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

Comment by east718

Comment by MBisanz

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request for clarification : Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff

Statement by EconomicsGuy II

Statement by JzG

Statement by User:Scott MacDonald

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

Statement by Gazimoff

See also related discussion

Statement by GRBerry

Statement by sgeureka

Statement by A Man In Black

Statement by Fut.Perf

Statement by DGG (talk)

Statement by PhilKnight - responding to DGG

Statement by Protonk

Statement by User:Randomran

Statement by RyanGerbil10

Statement by Norse Am Legend

Statement by ThuranX

Statement by User:Kww

Statement by User:casliber

Statement by User:erachima

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion