Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

Requests for arbitration

Airport Alternative Name

Initiated by Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) at 00:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MilborneOne#Airport_Alternative_Name

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nereo.lujan#Airport_Alternative_Name

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/iloilo_international_airport

Statement by Tumandokkangcabatuan

This is about an Involved Admin misusing his admin tools to gain advantage for his position.

A. MilborneOne being an involved admin:

MilborneOne claims to be a neutral admin but his edits speak differently. He was non-neutral and biased. He took sides in the dispute.

His biased editing was obvious when, for some time, he would refuse to recognize the official name of the airport, Iloilo Airport, as an alternative name, even though it is the official name and was properly sourced from the airport authority website. This official name can also be seen in front of the airport.

Being the official name, it is the logical first choice to be the alternative name or the article title, but MilborneOne reverted my edit.

http://caap.gov.ph/index.php/contact-us/directory/finish/22-contact/163-caap-airport-directory

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iloilo_International_Airport&diff=586024229&oldid=586005440

He is doing this because he and the other side of the dispute want to put a false and misleading name, Santa Barbara Airport, as an alternative name in that article, to the detriment of official and legitimate names, and to which my side disagrees.

Due to his non-neutral position and biased editing, he was in fact an involved admin.

B. MilborneOne misusing his admin tools to gain advantage:

Later, I came across another wiki page supporting our side. This was the first time that I had come across this wiki page, and it had not been mentioned yet in the article talk page. So I posted this new item in the talk page.

It was at this point that MilborneOne used his admin tools to gain advantage for his position. To prevent the new evidence from being read and discussed, he collapsed my posting in the talk page, will not discuss the new evidence at all, and threatened me with a topic ban.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iloilo_International_Airport#The_term_Santa_Barbara_Airport_is_inaccurate_and_should_not_be_put_in_the_lead_as_an_alternative_name

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tumandokkangcabatuan#Talk:Iloilo_International_Airport

C. Why the term Santa Barbara Airport is misleading and false:

The name Santa Barbara Airport is misleading and false because there is no airport in Santa Barbara, Iloilo (The Iloilo Airport was formerly located in Mandurriao and currently located in Cabatuan); it is not the official name of the airport (Both the old and the new airports are officially called Iloilo Airport); and Santa Barbara is not a city being served by the airport (the only cities in Iloilo Province are Passi City and Iloilo City).

Their source is not reliable because the U.S. Navy was not familiar with the place as it was visiting only for a few days, busily doing emergency typhoon-relief.

My viewpoint opposing this false name is also shared by the Chief Information Officer of the Provincial Government of Iloilo, among others, who had posted at the talk page that Santa Barbara Airport should not be presented as an alternative name.

Response to statement by Newyorkbrad
I did accept one compromise suggestion already that the term Santa Barbara Airport be mentioned, not in the lead, but in the section for names, and clarified to be an incorrect reference to the airport. In fact I edited to the exact language, but MilborneOne reverted them. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the wiki page on inaccuracy that I brought up in my last post in the article talk page provides for placing misleading information in a footnote. That was the post that MilborneOne collapsed and refused to discuss. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk)
Response to statement by Seraphimblade
The support for MilborneOne's refusal, for some time, to accept the official name of the airport as an alternative name is contained in my second link. ... The first link shows the official airport name in the directory of the airport authority. ... Refusing to recognize the official name as alternative name is unreasonable and can only be attributed to bias and involvement. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk)
Response to statement by AGK
May I ask for advice on what to do next to resolve this issue? Bringing it to dispute resolution needs the participation of the other side of the issue, and as the mediation attempt shows, they are not interested. Instead, what they are interested in is to shut out our side of the issue from wikipedia and monopolize the consensus for themselves. Aside from closing my last post at the article talk page even though I was bringing up a new item, and threatening me with a topic ban or block, they have one by one shut down whoever was editing or posting that has a view similar to mine. Even though I have nothing to do with those other accounts, they were accused falsely of being my socks. The checkuser have checked them and cannot find the connections (they were found inconclusive by the checkuser), and rightfully so because indeed they are not mine and I have nothing to do with them. But inspite of that, the other accounts were blocked. And now, this threat of topic ban or block on my account is going in that direction. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk)
Response to statement by uninvolved DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves
There is an obvious bias. MilborneOne's refusal for some time to recognize the official name of the airport as its alternative name is unreasonable and shows an obvious bias. ... This is the last resort on our side of the issue because other accounts with similar views have already been shut down by the other side through false accusations and my account is facing a similar fate. ... I wouldn't be coming to arbitration if I wasn't in this situation. ... I went to mediation earlier because I felt that that route would produce a more amicable consensus, since the participation of both sides would be voluntary. I was willing to compromise, but the other side is not interested. ... When I found a new item supporting our side, I did post it in the talk page. You cannot accuse me of not posting it there. In fact, that was the post that MilborneOne collapsed and then he threatened me with a ban if I speak further. ... Also, I have already presented in the article talk page my sources why the term Santa Barbara Airport is misleading. That term carries with it a connotation of location. When one says Santa Barbara Airport, especially when referring to a place, it implies or at least it gives the unfamiliar reader the idea that the airport is located in that place, which is false and I have shown it. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk)
Response to statement by uninvolved DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves
I did not edit since February because MilborneOne threatened me with a topic ban if I speak further, even though the item I posted was new and had not been mentioned yet in the article page. And it was this collapsing of my post and his threat of topic ban that i brought to arbitration. I started here where I left off there. I did not bring up anything here that had not been brought up yet in the article talk page. .... I was willing to talk at the article talk page and my last posting shows it. ... Again, I wouldn't be coming to arbitration if I wasn't in this situation of being shut out from wikipedia. I was forced by the situation. My goal is amicable consensus. I want to be friends with everyone.

Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk)

Response to statement by uninvolved DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves
I have reliable sources to prove that the airport is not located in Santa Barbara and I have posted them at the talk page. My source is authoritative as well. Here is one that I have posted earlier in my first statement here in arbitration. This is the directory of Philippine airports as sourced from the website of the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines, which runs the airports. Iloilo Airport is under Region VI in the list. As shown in this directory, the address of Iloilo Airport is not Santa Barbara. ... This is one of the sources that I have posted at the talk page. Being from the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines, this is the most authoritative source one can get. And you view this as not real?
http://caap.gov.ph/index.php/contact-us/directory/finish/22-contact/163-caap-airport-directory
As for your Ottawa Airport example, I believe you are looking for this source, which is not only reliable but also authoritative since it is a government website. Cabatuan Airport is in the second paragraph.
http://www.oton.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=44&layout=blog&Itemid=75
Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk)
Response to statement by GorillaWarfare
I certainly would like to exhaust all lower means to arrive at a consensus, but MilborneOne threatened me with a topic ban if I speak further. And being aware that other accounts sharing my views had already been shut down through false accusations, I had to assume that his threat is not idle. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk)
Response to statement by uninvolved DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves
I certainly would be happy to withdraw this filing if MilborneOne withdraws his threat of topic ban and continue talking to arrive at a compromise. The other side of the issue had already shown willingness not to put Santa Barbara Airport in the lead but only in a section. I also had shown willingness not to blank the term from that article as long as it is in a section only and less prominently. We were actually already in this agreement when MilborneOne came and threw it out. Had MilborneOne not arrived at that article, the differences between the two sides of the issue would have been resolved already a long time ago. ... Still, I have no hard feelings and would just like to be friends. I look forward to cooperating with him and you too in the future. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk)
Response to statement by uninvolved DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves
My sources are reliable and authoritative, not original research. You brought up the Ottawa International Airport as an example, and I gave you the reliable source you were looking for with regards to the topic (link below). If you need sources for other items, just say so. Thanks.
http://www.oton.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=44&layout=blog&Itemid=75
On the other hand, MilborneOne's refusal to accept the official name of the airport as alternative name, for some time, was based on nothing. He had no reason nor source whatsoever for refusing to recognize the official name as alternative name. Did he have a source from the airport authority that the airport is officially called by another name? he did not. On the contrary, aside from the official directory, the name shown in front of the airport is exactly the one that MilborneOne refused to recognize. You cannot even attribute it to original research, because original research can have validity and accuracy, it's just not being sourced. Whereas refusing to recognize a reliably sourced official name is totally baseless, and unsourced at that.
Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk)
Response to statement by Newyorkbrad
The responsibility of proving that, lies on the other side of the issue, not with me. ... And I think the response of Risker have answered your concern. Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk)


I have posted a new section regarding this at the article talk page. I hope MilborneOne will not topic ban me for initiating discussion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iloilo_International_Airport#Original_Research
Tumandokkangcabatuan (talk)

Statement by uninvolved DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves

I fail to see where basic dispute resolution has even begun. The statement includes laughable and wholly non-WP:AGF statements that someone actually intentionally wishes to deceive people by only referring to one name. No. Nobody wants to "deceive" people. "Bias" is certainly not at play, and those accusations are not only ridiculous, but lessen the chance that anyone will want to work positively in the future with you. You have a requirement to a) discuss the edits on the article talkpage, providing valid sources. If the dispute continues, there is the opportunity for a third opinion, or an WP:RFC. ArbCom is the final resort for all issues, not the very first the panda ₯’ 23:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't edited the article talkpage since February. I have just spent a few minutes on that talkpage and am surprised that you're NOT providing a single source for your claims to the name of the airport. You're performing original research and synthesizing facts to claim it's a valid name. That's bogus and misleading - the Ottawa International Airport is located in Gloucester - that does not mean it has an alternative name of "Gloucester International Airport". Nevertheless, this is NOT a situation for ArbCom - this is a minor content manner, well below what this forum is for the panda ₯’ 00:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom does not exist to come to "amicable consensus" - it's the equivalent of the Supreme Court, here to make judgement, usually on editor behaviour. You have tried NONE of the steps in WP:DR, although, as noted, you have no reliable sources to stand on. Please abandon this improper filing, and a) find yourself some REAL reliable sources, and THEN b) follow WP:DR the panda ₯’ 00:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbs: *sigh* if he doesn't get it yet, the community can implement a topic ban, or suggest mentoring, or any of a variety of things. But WP:OR and WP:STICKs are not yet ripe for Arbitration. As much as I'd love for Arb to pull the trigger, decline this and toss it somewhere ... the panda ₯’ 08:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

This naming dispute is even less of a plausible case for arbitration than the one about Sarah Jane Brown. It is perhaps just as well for the filing party that this case is so trivial that it will not be opened, because, if there is tendentious editing by the filing party and a case is accepted, it will boomerang because the conduct of the filing party will also be scrutinized. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Risker

In answer to Newyorkbrad's question, I've done some searching and I can find no other significant sources in English that refer to the airport as "Santa Barbara Airport", nor did the information I saw in the local language ever mention "Santa Barbara Airport" except to mention that the bus to the airport stops there. Calling it "Santa Barbara Airport" would be like calling La Guardia "Jackson Heights Airport", from what I can see. Risker (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

I'm uninvolved in this matter. Considering that Tumandokkangcabatuan is, judging by their edits, a single purpose account dedicated only to disputing the inclusion of an alternative name in the lead of the article about an airport; that this is an absolutely trivial content dispute; that Tumandokkangcabatuan has nonetheless disrupted Wikipedia on multiple occasions about this issue, including by edit-warring and sockpuppetry (for which they were blocked); that they have failed to heed the advice they were given by multiple administrators including by an arbitrator here; and that their conduct needlessly wastes the time of a lot of fellow volunteers, including through this frivolous request for arbitration; I conclude that Tumandokkangcabatuan's presence is, on the whole, detrimental to Wikipedia. Accordingly I am indefinitely blocking them. Any administrator is welcome to undo this if they disagree or if Tumandokkangcabatuan convinces us that they intend to drop the matter and make useful edits about something else.  Sandstein  08:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

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

Airport Alternative Name: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/0/0>

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

  • Awaiting statements, but leaning toward declining on the ground that this is principally a content dispute. Reading the article talkpage, the filing party has at times become seriously overwrought concerning whether "Santa Barbara Airport" should be mentioned as an alternate name or not. Please bear in mind that sometimes an alternate or secondary name for a site needs to be mentioned, even though it is neither the site's official name nor based on the site's exact location, where it is an alternative name that is actually used by denizens or others in referring to that site. Here, it might be good to have input from more Filipino editors and better sources evidencing whether "Santa Barbara Airport" is in fact in common usage as a name for this airport or not. It would also be good to rewrite the lead of the article, because it is virtually unreadable. However, thus far I don't see that any of this requires an arbitration case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline as an arbitration case. As for the content issue, Tumandokkangcabatuan has missed my point completely, which is unfortunate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to make one more effort to get through to Tumandokkangcabatuan, because he's going to wind up blocked or topic-banned if he keeps not understanding this point. I think everyone agrees that "Santa Barbara" is not the official name of the airport. And I think everyone agrees that the airport is not actually in Santa Barbara. But what you haven't addressed is whether a fair number of people actually call the airport the Santa Barbara Airport. If they do, then this fact needs to be mentioned in the article, and if a lot of them do, then it belongs in the lead. That is the content issue that needs to be addressed—but not here. If you can't understand this point, I suggest you leave the naming issue to people who do. (And for those who contend that this name is used, a few more sources wouldn't hurt.) This is my last word on this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. I don't see any support for the assertion of administrative misconduct, and the rest of the dispute does not seem to have progressed to a level that can't be handled by community processes. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is indeed the role of the committee to deal with abuses of admin tools. However, evidence that admin tools were even used, let alone abused, is completely absent from this request. The rest of it is a fairly low-level content dispute that does not require arbitration to resolve. Decline. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. As has already been said, the primary complaint has not been the subject of sufficient prior dispute resolution. AGK [•] 22:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. As AGK says above, I don't see that previous dispute resolution steps have been exhausted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What?! More dispute resolution steps?! 871 edits since April 2013, all of them about this one issue. Please don't point him to other dispute resolution processes; instead tell him to drop the subject right now and never bring it up again, or he'll be blocked indefinitely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline WormTT(talk) 09:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. This dispute is nowhere near being ripe for arbitration. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Brown

Initiated by 131.111.185.66 (talk) at 03:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

I have included users whose involvement went beyond a simple vote. That is not to say that all of the below users are involved in the problematic edits.

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

Statement by 131.111.185.66

The name of this article is contentious. During move request 7, there was consensus against the move, though multiple users suggested an alternative title (diff diff diff). After studying policy, I concluded there was a strong case for this. Following advice (diff), I closed the request (diff) and made a good faith request to this title (diff).

From previous comments, I recognised this might be controversial. Despite this, I believed most editors could act sensibly. Some users resorted to argumentative posts (diff diff diff).

Ninety minutes after discussion began, JzG (Guy) closed it (two supports and four opposes) (diff). He suggested he did not realise I closed the previous request early so the more favoured name could be discussed. Due to this mistake, I reverted and left a message for him (diff). He was rude and uncommunicative, telling me to ‘talk to the hand’ (diff). Not long afterwards, Drmies closed the discussion (four supports and seven opposes) with a biased summary (diff). He also changed the lead of the article (diff).

I was blocked by JzG, who had not attempted discussion with me, for these reverts. After learning more, I recognise I should not have reverted, no matter how I felt. I mistakenly believed I was entitled to three reverts, especially for edits that seemed to contravene guidelines for closing active discussions. Had an editor warned me, then my actions would have been entirely different. I also did not know JzG or Drmies were administrators.

JzG attacked my editing history (diff). Other than one controversial matter (which was decided in my favour and where I tried afterwards to resolve my differences with the other editor), I have never been involved in disputes. DangerousPanda left an upsetting and offensive message for me (diff).

After I was blocked, discussion continued on the talk page and at ANI, where editors discussed whether the request should continue. After at least four more pairs of closes and reversions, JzG closed the request (diff), with there being six supports at ANI for a close and five opposes. He created a ban on discussion and threatened to block editors who broke this (diff diff).

General discussion continued in hope of an improvement. Problems remain and progress is difficult (diff diff diff diff).

As recommended, once my block expired, I asked JzG whether he would discuss my concerns about his conduct (diff). Once again, he refused to do so (diff) and suggested I am not welcome on Wikipedia.

The topic has been controversial for years and there are no indications this is assuaging. The current problem goes beyond the article’s name or even whether discussion should have been curtailed: it involves problematic actions of users. Here are some of the accusations made: bad faith, bullying, disruption, personal attacks, being ‘pointy’, retaliatory blocking, sexism, ‘supervoting’ and ‘wheel-warring’. The discussion at ANI seemed unsuccessful and was criticised by editors. I believe arbitration is the only remaining possibility for editors’ actions to be investigated fully. Hopefully, this might also cause improvement of the general situation.

Thank you for looking through this matter, Beeblebrox. You have written that the behavioural problems do not appear to be serious enough for an arbitration case. In that case, I would like to ask you what you think would be most appropriate for me.
I am disappointed and quite offended by some of the comments made to me by a couple of administrators. JzG has made multiple bad faith assumptions about me (example example) whilst refusing to let me address his accusations, and DangerousPanda left an incredibly nasty message on my talk page (diff). Being a good faith user wanting to work towards improving the encyclopedia with absolutely no intention or previous history of causing any trouble, I have found this behaviour very upsetting. It is worth noting that many users have been supportive of me, including users who disagreed with the contents of the move request, so it is not simply a case of my having a problem with everyone. An experienced user even wrote that he felt I was a 'victim of bullying'.
Because the comments were made by administrators after an ANI discussion, I do not feel comfortable pursuing the matter there. I simply do not know where else to go, other than choosing to leave Wikipedia altogether. Am I wrong to expect more from administrators, or should I just learn to accept these kinds of remarks? Please let me know if I can be of any help to you. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Anthonyhcole

The committee may want to address some of the behaviour here, though I doubt it. Some of the comments around tendentious sexism on this site - including mine - have been impolite. I shall try to do better.

The OP seems to imply there is a serious problem with the article. The article is actually stable. Most are reasonably content with the current title, though most would now, I think, support or go along with a move to Sarah Brown, and the move to that title will likely happen in a month or so. The noises on the talk page are coming from a small determined group of editors unhappy with the move away from Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), and my sense of the mood on en.Wikipedia now is that it will never return to that title.

I oppose any notion of closing down discussion on the topic because that would feed the malcontents' sense of injustice and ultimately consume much more actual editors' (as opposed to arbitrators' or admins') time and, anyway, would be inimical to our ethos of open discourse. The current, observed, temporary moratorium on move requests is sufficient. The present discussion is a necessary preliminary to the impending move request. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Collect's, "This request is on what is, in the long run, a trivial matter" below. It is a relatively trivial manifestation of a profound issue here - the gender imbalance and its effect on content. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newyorkbrad

The underlying content issue is the title for the article about Sarah Brown, who is, among other things, the wife of Gordon Brown. Unadorned "Sarah Brown" is ambiguous, and there has been disagreement about whether and how to disambiguate. The current title at "Sarah Jane Brown" is not ideal, as she is called "Sarah Brown" more often than "Sarah Jane Brown" and the former would be the title if it weren't ambiguous, but it is acceptable faute de mieux.

The specific dispute here arose from RM 8, opened only days after RM 7 closed, proposing a move from "Sarah Jane Brown" to "Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)". Although not intended as such, a disambiguator in the form "Jane X (wife of John X)" will be viewed by many as denigrating of Ms. X. This form of disambiguation should not be used, especially in a BLP, where there is a reasonable alternative. Here, "Sarah Jane Brown" is a reasonable alternative, and it was obvious that consensus would not favor the proposed move.

Another administrator's closed the RM early, but was reverted. The rationale for reopening the RM was not that a move to "(wife of)" would be a good or even tolerable outcome. Rather, the reopening editor's explained that he wanted to see how many misguided or sexist comments might be made in support of the "(wife of)" title, and use those comments in future policy discussions.

I sincerely respect that editor's dedication to the principles underlying the BLP policy and the avoidance of sexism; we need more users focused on these issues. However, I strongly disagreed with the idea of prolonging a doomed discussion for a full week simply in the hope that poorly reasoned comments would be made. (We have enough bad behavior and ill-thought comments already; we don't need to invite more!) I opined that the close should be reinstated, and after some ANI discussion, another editor did reinstate it. He was immediately reverted, at which point I asked on ANI for a consensus in favor of restoring the closing. After several commenters agreed with me, I reinstated the close.

The case for early closure of this discussion was strong. While this Committee once disdained early closes (see, this principle), there are times when early closes enjoy strong community support (see, e.g., here), particularly where a BLP is concerned. This was one of those occasions.

My action too was quickly reversed, at which point I signed off for the evening. By the next morning, consensus had become even clearer to keep RM 8 closed, but a talkpage discussion had started about other potential disambiguators. That discussion is still ongoing, and while it might be considered a bit of a timesink, the user conduct in it has generally been acceptable and I see relatively few editors objecting to its continuing, though it should not go on forever. Thus, any concern that useful discussion is being blocked is unwarranted and this request should be declined. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC) (498 words).[reply]

Statement by SmokeyJoe

Ask JzG to apologize if he was rude. Ask the IP to find something constructive to do. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Johnuniq

If Wikipedia were a bureaucracy, the IP would have a great point because certain formulas show that "Sarah Jane Brown" is suboptimal. However, ultimately Wikipedia is driven by the judgment of its contributors, and the current judgment is that the title Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) has, ummm, certain drawbacks. There is no policy prohibiting outmoded titles—that's because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. An enormous amount of time and energy has been expended on the title and it's a shame the IP thought that it would be desirable to revert the closure of the eighth move discussion twice (revert JzG and revert Drmies), particularly after raising the matter at ANI (archive).

It would not be a good use of Arbcom's time to discuss the suitability of using the name of a person as an article title, and the matter was well-aired at ANI with no suggestion of admin abuse. Johnuniq (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

This request is on what is, in the long run, a trivial matter, being properly dealt with at the article talk page. According to normal process. This case would be out of process entirely. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahcole - that people can find a deep "gender issue" in it is Cleesian. Collect (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tarc

I wasn't aware that Arb filings could be done via anonymous IP, and assumed we required users to post these things under their own login.

At the heart it is just a content dispute, for now. There's a bit of tendentious "I didn't hear that" activity by a small handful of editors who insist on some form of patriarchal throwback of an article title, but it isn't so serious as to warrant action now. What Arbcom may be called to look into at some point in the future is the overall conduct and approach of several editors in regards to article titles of women's BLPs. The rancor and potential disruption ramifications are IMO more severe surrounding the closure of Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 7; Move Request of a woman's bio filed by an IP editor (where have I heard that before?), closed by a 3-admin panel as "no consensus", yet the opposition still won't let it go. Tarc (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NE Ent: will of course be providing evidence for which part of my statement above is untruthful, lest he be sanctioned for violating WP:NPA & WP:DISRUPT in an arbitration case request. Tarc (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Resolute

Per Tarc. I can definitely see a future arbitration case materializing for at least one user in this dispute (not the IP), but even that situation is not yet ripe for this forum. Discussion continues on the talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution do not yet appear to have been attempted. Resolute 14:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

Strike my response. I will reply if the case is accepted. Frankly, the content issue is a teapot tempest and the conduct issue with the peopel who refuse to accept a non-parenthesised title is mainly confined to talk and project pages and almost certainly below the level of arbitration. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NE Ent

There's no case here. Arbitrators not familiar with past history might want to take into account that Tarc is a self-confessed liar [1] when evaluating their statements. NE Ent 00:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis

NE Ent, that's impossible. Count Iblis (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by In Ictu Oculi

I don't think there's a need for ArbCom involvement. (1) As far as the title goes, given that centre-left sources such as The London Guardian describe the BLP with wording such as "Sarah Brown... (spouse)", eventually the article title will correct itself to something in accord with WP:TITLE policy. (2) As far as the broader issue of whether "misogynist" "patriarchal" "sexist" (with or without reference to excrement) is applicable/justifiable to editors citing The Guardian or WP:TITLE is something that could be handled with improvement of wording at Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, and I have opened a section there where editors who have an opinion either way can express it where it is most relevant. (3) As far as individual editors go, those with extensive Block Logs will no doubt increase them, and as far as individual edits by anyone, be they IP, admin, excrement caller, whoever, these are small bubbles on the teacup surface, and require no immediate urgent action by anyone. There's no fire. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

The requesting IP hasn't provided any evidence that conduct issues are interfering with the naming dispute, which is a content dispute. The content dispute is inherently contentious, and is continuing because there is no consensus on what the title of the article should be. Have there been personal attacks? (Probably, but the requesting party hasn't identified them.) Has there been slow-motion name-warring, due to insistence by contentious editors on proposing the same move repeatedly after it has no consensus? (Probably, but the requesting party hasn't identified them.) Has there been sock-puppetry? (No indication of sock-puppetry.) Have there been other conduct issues inflaming the content dispute? In the absence of evidence of conduct issues, I concur with the multiple other outside parties that the ArbCom can decline this case. The only plausible remedies would be to impose a moratorium on name requests, such as in process on Genesis creation narrative, or to subject the article to discretionary sanctions, but the former can be done without arbitration, and the latter is overkill, since the article itself is not controversial. The IP has failed to make the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that an administrator did an early close of the most recent move request, and someone else re-opened the move request in order to see how many sexist or otherwise inappropriate comments were made in support of "Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown". That is, in my view, a seriously disruptive case in disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Has that editor been strongly warned about disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? At this point a block for that re-open, again reversed, would be punitive rather than preventive, but that editor should be warned. However, there is no evidence presented of other misconduct that requires arbitration. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can a previously uninvolved administrator impose a moratorium on move requests for this article to dispose of his case? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved DHeyward

Just an observation that reference to spouse of the Prime Minister is sometimes referred to as "Prime Ministerial Consort." It's gender neutral though it would be looked at more negatively in the U.S., it would be as appropriate for Margaret Thatcher's husband as is for Gordon Brown's wife and if that is the hook for notability it seems it's necessary for disambiguation. Seems an overall silly matter to be a dispute. Editor behavior is a different matter. --DHeyward (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {further user 2}

Clerk notes

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

Sarah Brown: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/1/1>

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

  • Recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewing the situation and awaiting additional statements. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline, and would remind the anonymous editor that if everyone's having a problem with you, the problem might well be you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline Obviously, we are not going to stick our collective nose into the title dispute, and the behavioral problems do not appear so serious and intractable that a case is required to curb them. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The case, as framed here, does not appear to be ripe for arbitration. However, I feel I need to voice my concern over some of JzG's replies: adopting this tone is unbecoming, especially when asked a question in good faith. If this is a one-off occurrence, then no problem; if, on the other hand, there is a pattern of incivility on the part of JzG, I'd welcome a case to review his style of interaction. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline request as framed. AGK [•] 11:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline request. The behavioral problems don't appear to warrant an arbitration case, and the title decision is not ours to make. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, because if I have to think for very long about the fact that there have been 8 move request discussions about this, I may very well break down in tears in public, and that would be embarrassing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline WormTT(talk) 09:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline NativeForeigner Talk 21:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, concurring with Floq's sentiments. LFaraone 22:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=608294551

Leave a Reply