Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

This motion here passed with a majority on April 20. Unless I'm missing something as to the reason(s) why it hasn't been closed yet, I thought motions (after they pass) are/were supposed to be enacted within 24-48 hours of passing. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason is that no one has closed it. ArbCom motions only have a minimum time requirement for closing (24-48 hours depending on circumstance) but not a maximum. Primefac (talk) 07:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this comment on the proposed consolidated case name: as the arbitrators may recall, using thematic case request names was discussed in Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 36 § Community feedback: Proposal on case naming, along with sequential numbering and other more fanciful suggestions. ({{ArbCase}} supports a year-number format for accepted cases, for cases specified in Module:ArbCaseAlias/data.) Perhaps the arbitration committee might re-consider how to name cases requests and accepted cases? isaacl (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is an ongoing discussion, but one that has not reached a consensus of opinion. Primefac (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are non-admin editors allowed/encouraged to make statements? Are we allowed to share perceptions about recent activities at AfD, or is it strictly evidence that is sought? I have opinions I'd like to share, but they are perception based, and I'm not sure if that is helpful/encouraged/problematic etc. CT55555 (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statements are not limited to admins. -- BDD (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And must statements simply be "evidence" or can I share my perceptions about trends? CT55555 (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they should preferably have some form of evidence, even if only in the form of links to some specific AfDs. Just a perception that "editor X, Y and Z make AfD toxic" or "topics like orchid collecting bring out the worst in editors at AfD" without any diff or link to accompany them are at best useless, and at worst personal attacks. Fram (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can share your perceptions but the best statements are backed up by diffs. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But yes to Fram's point that if you're naming specific editors in your perceptions support of those perceptions is necessary. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both. Fram, I'm sensitive to the personalisation of this, hopefully you'll see I've tried to avoid making this about any subject, theme, AfD, or editor and tried to convey a need to take a wider view. If I started giving examples, I think it would be too granular and risk missing the bigger picture. I appreciate the fast advice on this. I was going to be a silent observer, but User:Joe_Roe's comment made me feel like I should comment. CT55555 (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Question for ARBs - If opened, would the case cover this issue of editor conduct at AfD, namely the badgering of editors who !vote in opposition to their view, whether that view is for retention or deletion. At least one of the three named parties practices this. Mjroots (talk) 06:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We are still working out the specifics of the case, but it will cover conduct of the named parties at a bare minimum. Primefac (talk) 09:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected project page at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Edit being reversed on Susan Collins wiki page.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Collins

This edit goes through the impact of the vote Susan Collins took, the speech she made on the Senate Floor, the subsequent public statements Susan Collins made, and the historical impacts regaurding Dobbs v. Jackson. The edit is consistent both in relevant content and placement of already existing edits. For instance the article discusses Amy Barrett’s nomination vote directly above the edit.

I agree the edit can be refined, that the citations formatting can be improved, even that it can be shortened.  But that is what the talk page is used for and through collaboration the edit can be improved.  Collaboration is important because my strength may be pulling together facts and ideas, but not spelling and wiki citation methods, even improvement to make sure bias is not coming through but appropriately capturing the national discussion of the legacy and criticisms that are being made by respected scholars and commentators.

However, to consistently strip out what legal scholars are arguing is the most profound vote in US History regaurdong civil rights and the function of the entire judicial branch is a disservice to history and the purpose of wikipedia. This is not a speculative piece, it is now historical looking back at past events. I am willing to work with administrators, provide more citations etc., but request that the content not be excluded from the article.

Please find the below edit:

On May 2, 2022, Politico ran an exclusive article of the confirmed legitimate leaked opinion of the court where Brett Kavanaugh voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. ^[1] Subsequent to the release of this leaked opinion Susan Collins stated, “If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office,.” ^[2] The Senator in 2018, made a speech on the floor of the US Senate to defend her vote for Kavanaugh, as there were substantial doubts that Brett Kavanaugh was being genuine in his promise. ^{[3] [4]} Susan Collins in her speech vouched that Brett Kavanaugh would defend Roe: “His views on honoring precedent would preclude attempts to do by stealth that which one has committed not to do overtly.” ^[5] Senator Collins in the speech was in part referencing stare decisis, which bound the court by precidence in it’s judicial rulings. Legal scholars, such as Alison Frankel, ^[6] argue precidence based rule of law would fall along with Roe v. Wade in this leaked opinion.^[7] As early as October 5, 2018 the NYT described Susan Collins vote as her “legacy” ^[8] and cited Michael Keegan, president of People for the American Way as stating, “This shameful vote will be Susan Collins’s legacy,” ^[9]. Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed 50-48, and could not have been seated without the vote of Senator Susan Collins.^{[10] [11]}

On May 11, 2022, after the leaked opinion became public, Senator Collins voted against a bill to codify Roe v. Wade into federal law.^[12]

On June 24, 2022, Roe v. Wade was overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson.^[13] The decisive, now legacy, vote by Susan Collins to confirm Brett Kavanaugh proved the promise she had recieved in exchange for her vote was disingenuous. Susan Collins claims to have been “misled” despite having ample warning by others the promise was disingenuous. ^[14] Susan Collins was criticized at the time for casting her vote to confirm the justice on a promise she was warned the justice would not keep.^[15] Justice Kavanaugh once confirmed did vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. This was the first time the US Supreme Court reversed a constitutional right it had previously recognized. "With sorrow — for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection — we dissent," the three dissenting justices wrote. ^[16] A right millions of American Women would still have today if not for Susan Collin’s swing vote to change the course of history.

In addition to overturning Roe v. Wade, the court indicated in Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion it would seek to reverse Lawrence v. Texas, Obergefell v. Hodges, and Griswold v. Connecticut. ^{[17] [18]} The effect of this confirmation will have wide implications on reinstituting Sodomy Laws to allow for the imprisonment of gay people again, stripping away Gay Marriage, and banning all forms of birth control even amoung married adults. 24.185.100.206 (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)CollinsHistorian[reply]

So all this is one voters fault? Is there any fault at the other 49 who voted for Kavanaugh? He also does not run the Supreme Court. I think what is already in the article about this should suffice. Brian (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]