Unfortunately, I am here to seek arbitration for the resolution of a dispute that has lasted for six months (the arbitation was recommended to me in this thread). The List of political parties in Italy contains several rules which have never been approved by the community, but which were introduced by a single user (Checco). A compromise would have been found on some rules, but some rules are the result of his singular point of view. I premise that no party list has rules for inclusion, let alone rules that have never been approved in advance by consensus. All attempts to involve other users in the discussion have failed, as have all attempts to reach a compromise for the overall approval of the criteria. Wikipedia:DRN also failed due to low participation of Checco.

The user Checco claims that these rules have been approved by several users, but this is not the case, the only one intervening in support of these rules is a user little involved with Italian politics, Autospark (presumably the two users also communicate outside Wikipedia, since I've already seen similar proposals from Checco, and this behavior doesn't seem quite transparent to me). I asked other users' opinion on the current rules, but no one intervened, not even for general support, so it is difficult to say that there is an established consensus. Rather, there is an established disinterest.

Since the article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale, I think it's unfair that its content should be authorized by a single user. This is not the case with any other party list. Basically, I am asking if it is legitimate for a user to be imposing rules that he unilaterally introduced, which have not received comunity support and which have been challenged by a user who would be seriously interested in editing the page to improve it. In my view, if there are rules agreed by the community in the future, they could be reintroduced. Until then, it would be better to remove them, since they reflect a minority and contested point of view.

I find that it is basically contrary to the principles of Wikipedia the behavior of a user who claims the right to decide which rules are good for the page and which are not, because no user can arrogate the right to decide for himself the rules of such an important page. I hope someone can solve this issue and state whether this behavior is legitimate or not...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Checco: I have good reason to think that you and Autospark are communicating outside Wikipedia, he always intervenes in discussions after you and only to support your position, in any context, it seems to me a strange coincidence. With your "all or nothing" reasoning you continue to confirm your attitude: you are the one you that concedes me something, when instead in Wikipedia the rules should be the result of a discussion. A discussion that doesn't exist: neither in en.Wikipedia (where is it?) nor in it.wikipedia (where the list has no rules; moreover the decisions of it.twikipedia are worth nothing here).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DeCausa To find an overall compromise with the other user, in six months I opened more discussions, I asked for Rfc, third opinions and DRN. All failed. Isn't arbitration the last resort?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon I am always open to dialogue and compromise. I just want the rules to be the expression of as large a number of users as possible. So far Checco has tried to block the dialogue on certain rules, if someone proposes to mediate, he is welcome on my part.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon I can make a new request to Drn myself. My main interest is to have a greater involvement of other users and other opinions, so if the decline to the request for arbitration would be useful to open a new participatory discussion, I could still be satisfied.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Checco

The number of political parties in Italy is virtually infinite. That is why we have conditions of admission in List of political parties in Italy and Template:Italian political parties. As User:MrOllie pointed out at Wikipedia:Teahouse, "standalone list inclusion criteria can be whatever is supported by consensus of the editors involved in working on that list" and "any criteria could be 'legitimate'".

Rules were not decided by me alone. They are the result of a long process, through discussions and cooperative edits, both in it.Wikipedia and en.Wikipedia, both regarding the template and the list. Over the last year, rules have been strongly challenged by User:SDC. He has invited several users to discuss and, when not edit-warring, he has long tried to obtain changes and he succeeded on several occasions. Basically, only User:Autospark and I have been more or less regularly involved in the discussion until today. Sometimes, I have been out from Wikipedia for three/four days or, once, a week (that is why I could not participate in a thread at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard in time), but I never refrained from answering to any comment or proposal by User:SDC. In a nutshell, all the users who participated in the discussion have explicitly or implicitly supported the current rules or, at least, the fact that, until a new consensus is formed, they should stay.

This said, I am also interested in changing the current rules. I have been proposing a new presentation (it would make easier for both readers and editors to understand them and engage in the talk page), I have offered several compromises and there have been several issues on which we have agreed, but User:SDC's "all or nothing" strategy has made few compromises possible so far.

I have to say that the fact that my good faith is always put into question is quite annoying and, frankly, offensive. User:SDC has a long history of accusing me of just about everything, as well as disparaging User:Autospark, an independent-minded, knowledgeable and long-time editor, for the only reason that he frequently agrees with me on this specific issue.

There is ample room for further changing the rules. I am a good-faith editor and, as User:SDC should know, despite his accusations, I am always open to dialogue and compromise, otherwise I would have made bold edits (including adding the non-controversial "Organisation" scheme—there is an ongoing RfC now) and I would not have accepted compromise rules that I do not like. Indeed, some of the issues raised by User:SDC have already reached a positive solution in the list.

Conditions of admission are legitimate and the current rules are established consensus. This said, I will always be available for debate and, as said, I am much interested in changing some of the rules and, first and foremost, their presentation. --Checco (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Robert McClenon: I am interested in your mediation! The current rules are those listed in the RfC I started this morning. The RfC is only about a better presentation of the current rules, but I am sure it will be easy to discuss changes starting from a clear presentation. --Checco (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Autospark

I feel the need to have some level of rules for inclusion into the list article – essentially, in terms of Italian political parties, there is such a broad range of organisations past and present that some level of control has to be set for relevance and notability. I would prefer for users to discuss, agree and compromise on the issue, in order to (hopefully) arrive at a well-constructed set of inclusion criteria which all users can be satisfied with.

I am not particularly happy about accusations casually thrown around by User: Scia Della Cometa. It does not seem in good faith to do so, and feel that it needlessly derails the discussion, in this case on the inclusion rules. As my general history has shown, I am prepared to compromise (in fact I aim to do so), and try to avoid bold or non-consensus edits.--Autospark (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WaltCip

Per Usedtobecool and the discussion at the Teahouse, this is nowhere near ripe for arbitration. It's not even planted in the ground and covered in manure. Our ARBCOM is already busy this month with extraordinarily more pressing matters. Suggest speedy close. --WaltCip-(talk) 15:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DeCausa

Premature. Easy mistake to make for those less than clear on our law-library-sized byzantine processes except the initiator did receive excellent advice on both the issue itself and WP:DR from Usedtobecool in this thread at the Teahouse on what to to do. Unfortunately, seems uninterested in following through on that. DeCausa (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Italian political parties)

First, this is a content dispute. To the best of my knowledge, there has not been any claim about conduct issues. This dispute appears to have been filed here based on a mistaken good-faith comment by User:David notMD that arbitration is needed, and he probably meant that mediation is needed.

This dispute was at DRN briefly about two months ago. I closed it for timing reasons. The other editor, User:Checco is a long-standing editor who edits intermittently. As I said at the time, their opinions need to be respected and heeded, but without impeding work on the article. The usual rules require each editor to respond within 48 hours. That will not work. I am on the one hand willing to try to conduct mediation on a schedule that is agreeable to both principal editors. The use of RFCs is the alternative. There have been previous RFCs that have had inadequate participation. The other editor in this case, User:Checco, has now started a poorly worded RFC, which is better than nothing.

The filing party, User:Scia Della Cometa, is making resolution of this dispute difficult by the length of their posts, their impatience, and their apparent hostility. (Remember that using too many words increases the amount of time for other editors to respond to your lengthy posts.) I am willing to try to mediate this dispute with a schedule that will work for Checco and SDC, and, if so, I will insist that they be concise. I remind them that the objective should be to improve the article, not to argue about the article. What I think would work best is a sort of facilitated discussion with the objective of composing the right RFCs.

I thank editors User:Firefangledfeathers, User:Usedtobecool, and User:Nightenbelle for trying to be constructive with these two editors.

On the one hand, I think that we are here because an editor at the Teahouse mistakenly referred to arbitration rather than mediation. On the other hand, the side benefit of this misfiling may be to get these two editors to talk to each other and the community rather than just posting repeatedly on an article talk page.

If this case request stays open, I will request another 300 words to try to address to these editors. That will be small compared to the words that User:Scia Della Cometa has already posted.

ArbCom should decline this case. Are the two editors willing to participate in facilitated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC

Added Note

User:Scia Della Cometa, User:Checco - If either of you enter a case request at DRN, I will open a case for moderated discussion, and will provide ground rules that will permit periodic breaks, and other editors may also participate. Civility and conciseness will be demanded. The purpose of the moderated discussion will be to improve the List of political parties in Italy. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Usedtobecool

Decline, obviously. Since this has the attention of the community, what would help is someone clerking the talk page, hatting repetitions and irrelevancies. It would also help for an admin to watch the discussions and warn participants against bludgeoning. There will be enough interest now that it will resolve one way or the other, if the main parties to the dispute don't get to say anything twice in the same discussion. I would do the clerking except I am a bit involved, having opined that the selection criteria used in the article go beyond editorial discretion and may constitute original research. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Legitimacy about the imposition of never approved rules: Clerk notes

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

Legitimacy about the imposition of never approved rules: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/6/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Decline This appears to be a content dispute,which is out of ArbCom's purview. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Arbcom doesn't decide content. The still-running RfC hasn't been publicised at either of the projects noted on the article's talk page. That would be more productive than letting the RfC run on for 6 weeks with just 2 protagonists and 2 by-standers. Cabayi (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Beelblebrox and Cabayi. - Donald Albury 20:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even were it the case that the normal content process has stalled, it also appears there are still multiple conduct processes to try in this case. Decline also at this time. --Izno (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we're doing the formal vote thing I am a decline per my colleagues. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. What this needs is more eyes on the talk page, broader recruitment to the RfC as Cabayi suggests, and possibly a WP:DRN post. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]