Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
xign & add undated
Statement by {Non-party}: statement by Robert McClenon - request is vexatious
Line 88:
=== Statement by North8000 ===
I don't have knowledge about the particular issue but have several interactions with Corbie where I felt they acted incorrectly as an ''editor'' (albeit possibly with utilizing an admin imprimatur) much less as an admin. I basically let those situations "blow over". IMO this should not be dismissed out of hand. IMO somewhere it should be reviewed to see if some feedback/course correction/guidance is in order. Probably wp:ani does not do well in handling such things. Perhaps an authoritative / methodical "smaller" review by arbcom with some possible mild result/guidance of the types that I noted would be a good thing even if it is not the classic arbocm situation. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 00:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 
===Statement by Robert McClenon (Witchcraft)===
Like L235, I think that ArbCom should accept more cases than it does, and should encourage editors to bring cases. ArbCom has for years been tacitly discouraging editors from bringing cases because most of the initial responses to most case requests start out between negative and neutral. ArbCom has the mandate to hear and resolve cases that the community is not able to resolve, either because they polarize and divide the community, or because the community does not have the authority to resolve them. Administrator abuse is in the latter class. Great monster cases at [[WP:ANI]] are in the former class, but it seems that some arbitrators prefer not to accept them.
 
However, this dispute is not a case that the community has so far been unable to resolve. On 25 July 2023, the filing editor filed a request for discussion at [[WP:DRN|DRN]]. The disagreement about the content and structure of the [[Witchcraft]] article is not the sort of case that DRN is primarily intended to resolve, but I agreed to conduct discussion to try to address issues about the scope of the article. After some discussion, an RFC has been started concerning the [[WP:LEDE|lede paragraph]] of the article. I do not know whether this approach will resolve the article content dispute, which is about the scope and subject matter of the article, but the community has not been able to resolve it, because both the DRN and the RFC were still open at the time that the filing editor filed this arbitration case request. Because the community is still working to try to resolve this dispute as a content dispute, the filing of the arbitration request was not only unnecessary, but vexatious. ArbCom should not only decline this case, but admonish the filing editor for misuse of process. I have failed the DRN case. The RFC is in progress. If the filing editor thinks that there has been administrator abuse, they have not made that case, but have only [[WP:ASPERSIONS|cast aspersions]]. The next stop may be [[WP:ANI]], and maybe the community should consider [[WP:TBAN|topic-bans]].
 
ArbCom should decline this case, and admonish the filing editor for vexatious filing. Any conduct allegations can go to [[WP:ANI]].
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 05:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 
=== Statement by {Non-party} ===