→Statement by Qwyrxian: mistake in year for one DR |
Magog the Ogre (talk | contribs) →Statement by {Party 3}: + my comment |
||
Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
Technically speaking, I should have been notified as well, since I was involved (albeit briefly) in attempting to get to some sort of dispute resolution running (specifically by filing a MedCom request). However I withdrew from that for various reasons, which I will list at a later time, as well as providing a statement, which will be included in this section (but for now, I need to sleep). – [[User:Ajl772|AJL]]<sup><b>[[User talk:Ajl772|talk]]</b></sup> 10:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC) |
Technically speaking, I should have been notified as well, since I was involved (albeit briefly) in attempting to get to some sort of dispute resolution running (specifically by filing a MedCom request). However I withdrew from that for various reasons, which I will list at a later time, as well as providing a statement, which will be included in this section (but for now, I need to sleep). – [[User:Ajl772|AJL]]<sup><b>[[User talk:Ajl772|talk]]</b></sup> 10:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
=== Statement by |
=== Statement by Magog the Ogre === |
||
Pardon me if I get any of this wrong... never filed an RFAr request before. Hopefully I don't miss anything important. |
|||
I entered the dispute through [[WP:AN3]], a board which at times I frequent as a deciding admin. Since then, [[Senkaku Islands dispute]] has been subject to numerous locks [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Senkaku+Islands+dispute], and [[Senkaku Islands]] has been on indefinite protection [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Senkaku+Islands]. The page has gone through failed RFCs, a mediation, and requests at ANI to help, not to mention numerous pleas on my talk page surrounding the issue ([[User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 9#Indef full protect on Senkaku Islands dispute|1]],[[User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 9#Senkaku Islands again|2]],[[User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 10#User:Bobthefish2|3]],[[User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 11#RFC/U on Tenmei|4]],[[User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 13#NPOV-title tag|5]],[[User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 13#Senkaku Islands dispute|6]],[[User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 14#Pro-Wikipedia|7]],[[User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 14#ANI|8]],[[User talk:Magog the Ogre#Senkaku Islands|9]],[[User talk:Magog the Ogre#BRD on SI|10]],[[User talk:Magog the Ogre#BRD cycle breaking|11]],[[User talk:Magog the Ogre#Senkaku Islands dispute|12]],[[User talk:Magog the Ogre#Senkaku Islands dispute, Tenmei|13]]). |
|||
At a few times, I may not have given the issue the proper consideration it was due (cf. [[User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 9#Senkaku Islands again|2]], where I was a bit unnecessarily rude about it as well). Nevertheless, I have done what's in my power to try to further the resolution in a way amenable to all parties. Recently, I took the unorthodox step of placing [[Senkaku Islands dispute]] on mandatory [[WP:BRD]] watch - any party breaking BRD would be subject to a block. This was an unusual step, granted, but it was a last ditch effort on my part to come up with a solution short of indefinite full-protection and/or Arbcom intervention (oh, and it did have community support!). |
|||
Nevertheless, it has not worked. Since, it has been quite clear to me that: |
|||
* All attempts at dispute resolution will continue to fail, as parties have and will continue to talk right past each other. |
|||
* None of the players in the dispute has been acting poorly in an overt enough fashion that the community would support bans/blocks for any one deed, or even for behavior as a whole without an Arbcom ruling. |
|||
* Certain figures have been acting in ways that has inflamed rather than alleviated the dispute. |
|||
* The situation would be helped greatly and possibly solved altogether with the censure of non-helpful parties in a way which Arbcom can accomplish, but which the community at large cannot. ''"Cast out the scorner, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease."'' |
|||
On the case of figures acting poorly: specifically, I have called out two editors: |
|||
* [[User:Tenmei]] for his unnecessarily loquaciousness, which I believe has often been (and unintentionally) used to cover up a case of [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]]. I also believe Tenmei exhibits a severe case of [[m:MPOV]], and possibly a lack of necessary [[WP:COMPETENCE]] (it is hurtful, and it pains me to say, but it is true). |
|||
* I have also called out [[User:Bobthefish2]] for what I believe to be a desire to do nothing ''but'' troll and cause controversy. At every step of the way, his actions have seemed tailored to cause more strife, not less. Examples can be provided should Arbcom accept this case. |
|||
Finally, I would like to echo Qwyrxian's statement that Arbcom does not, and should not, rule directly on content (this is kind of important, in light of a careless comment I made which was mailed to the Arbcom list, a comment which in fact was based on an overly-quick and incorrect reading of the statement). However, some rules/guidelines for conduct and censure of the bad apples would be quite helpful. |
|||
=== Statement by {Party 4} === |
|||
=== Clerk notes === |
=== Clerk notes === |
Revision as of 12:21, 13 August 2011
Requests for arbitration
Senkaku Islands
Initiated by Qwyrxian (talk) at 09:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Qwyrxian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
- Tenmei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bobthefish2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- STSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Lvhis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Oda Mari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Phoenix7777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- John Smith's (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Benlisquare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Penwhale (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Feezo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Tenmei
- Bobthefish2
- STSC
- Lvhis
- Oda Mari
- Phoenix7777
- John Smith's
- Benlisquare
- Penwhale
- Feezo
- Magog the Ogre
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- See below in Statement by Qwyrxian
Statement by Qwyrxian
Senkaku Islands and [Senkaku Islands dispute]] have been the subject of dispute as far back as 2003 (See Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 1). Senkaku Islands has been protected 5 times, including twice in the past year, and is currently fully protected. Senkaku Islands dispute has been protected 5 times since its creation in October 2010, and is currently fully protected. The issues being debated range from individual word and grammatical choices, to identifying and interpreting RS's, to overall organization. One of the most persistent arguments revolves around the article title itself. The page has been moved unilaterally several times (see page logs), but was moved back each time. Various steps of dispute resolution have been taken; none have succeeding in ending the disputes. Specifically:
- July 2007—Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 3#Requested move: Request to move to "Pinnacle Islands".
- September 2010—Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 3#Requested move 2: Request to move to "Pinnacle Islands".
- November 2010—Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 6#What should the title of this article be?: RfC on the article title.
- May – July 2011—Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands: MedCom mediation.
Also, issues relating to these pages have been raised on noticeboards and Wikitalk pages, including WP:NORN (Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 15#Figure captions in Senkaku Island/Diaoyutai article), WP:NPOVN (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 20#Long running dispute on Senkaku Islands dispute), WP:ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive8#Senkaku Islands stolen?, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive644#Senkaku Islands dispute, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive712#Senkaku Islands - admin COI intervention), WT:NCGN (4 discussions, see search results), and possibly others.
The aforementioned Mediation failed. It closed after numerous editors were unable to behave and stay on topic; eventually, several editors abandoned mediation and it closed without any useful result. These behavioral problems have been rampant on the article talk pages and related user talk pages since 2010. Some editors have held that no matter what consensus says, the current article title will never be acceptable. Others have used baiting and borderline personal attacks. Others overwhelm the talk page with extremely complex and nearly impossible to follow philosophical arguments and graphics. One editor was taken to WQA for xyr behaviors on these pages (Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive99#User:Bobthefish2); another was the subject of an RFC/U (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei). While in the past I had hoped to use the DR process to solve our problems, I have come to believe that until the behavioral problems are corrected, we will be unable to make constructive progress on the article content.
Finally, I would like to state that I am aware of the fact that ArbCom does not rule on content; however, if the committee accepts this case, and has any suggestions about how to settle the naming issue such as a binding RfC, a site-wide vote as happened for Liancourt Rocks, etc., input would be appreciated. The name has been one of the sticking points that keeps us from progressing on to actual article improvement, and so a lasting solution is highly desirable.
Statement by Ajl772
Technically speaking, I should have been notified as well, since I was involved (albeit briefly) in attempting to get to some sort of dispute resolution running (specifically by filing a MedCom request). However I withdrew from that for various reasons, which I will list at a later time, as well as providing a statement, which will be included in this section (but for now, I need to sleep). – AJLtalk 10:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Statement by Magog the Ogre
Pardon me if I get any of this wrong... never filed an RFAr request before. Hopefully I don't miss anything important.
I entered the dispute through WP:AN3, a board which at times I frequent as a deciding admin. Since then, Senkaku Islands dispute has been subject to numerous locks [1], and Senkaku Islands has been on indefinite protection [2]. The page has gone through failed RFCs, a mediation, and requests at ANI to help, not to mention numerous pleas on my talk page surrounding the issue (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13).
At a few times, I may not have given the issue the proper consideration it was due (cf. 2, where I was a bit unnecessarily rude about it as well). Nevertheless, I have done what's in my power to try to further the resolution in a way amenable to all parties. Recently, I took the unorthodox step of placing Senkaku Islands dispute on mandatory WP:BRD watch - any party breaking BRD would be subject to a block. This was an unusual step, granted, but it was a last ditch effort on my part to come up with a solution short of indefinite full-protection and/or Arbcom intervention (oh, and it did have community support!).
Nevertheless, it has not worked. Since, it has been quite clear to me that:
- All attempts at dispute resolution will continue to fail, as parties have and will continue to talk right past each other.
- None of the players in the dispute has been acting poorly in an overt enough fashion that the community would support bans/blocks for any one deed, or even for behavior as a whole without an Arbcom ruling.
- Certain figures have been acting in ways that has inflamed rather than alleviated the dispute.
- The situation would be helped greatly and possibly solved altogether with the censure of non-helpful parties in a way which Arbcom can accomplish, but which the community at large cannot. "Cast out the scorner, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease."
On the case of figures acting poorly: specifically, I have called out two editors:
- User:Tenmei for his unnecessarily loquaciousness, which I believe has often been (and unintentionally) used to cover up a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I also believe Tenmei exhibits a severe case of m:MPOV, and possibly a lack of necessary WP:COMPETENCE (it is hurtful, and it pains me to say, but it is true).
- I have also called out User:Bobthefish2 for what I believe to be a desire to do nothing but troll and cause controversy. At every step of the way, his actions have seemed tailored to cause more strife, not less. Examples can be provided should Arbcom accept this case.
Finally, I would like to echo Qwyrxian's statement that Arbcom does not, and should not, rule directly on content (this is kind of important, in light of a careless comment I made which was mailed to the Arbcom list, a comment which in fact was based on an overly-quick and incorrect reading of the statement). However, some rules/guidelines for conduct and censure of the bad apples would be quite helpful.
Statement by {Party 4}
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).