Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:05, 11 June 2009 view sourceSeeyou (talk | contribs)1,680 edits →In re Seeyou's statement← Previous edit Revision as of 21:12, 11 June 2009 view source Jéské Couriano (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers40,110 edits →In re Seeyou's statement: DiffNext edit →
Line 98: Line 98:
Seeyou, it's your behavior since before I even started showing up at ] that is under review. It is your very recent, repeated, baseless accusations of ] that prompted me to file the request. And, if you'll read below your statement, the ArbCom will open the case soon. -<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 20:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Seeyou, it's your behavior since before I even started showing up at ] that is under review. It is your very recent, repeated, baseless accusations of ] that prompted me to file the request. And, if you'll read below your statement, the ArbCom will open the case soon. -<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 20:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
:Jeske / Jeremy, Which accusation ? Provide the reference with my exact words. Thanks in advance. ] (]) 21:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC) :Jeske / Jeremy, Which accusation ? Provide the reference with my exact words. Thanks in advance. ] (]) 21:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
:: in particular, Seeyou. -<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 21:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


=== Statement by Famousdog === === Statement by Famousdog ===

Revision as of 21:12, 11 June 2009

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
St. John's University (NY) Article   10 June 2009 {{{votes}}}
Seeyou   8 June 2009 {{{votes}}}
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

Requests for arbitration

Shortcuts

About this page

Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.


File an arbitration request


Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

  • This page is for statements, not discussion.
  • Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
  • Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
  • Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
  • After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
  • Declined case requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.


St. John's University (NY) Article

Initiated by Newyorkborn (talk) at 14:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

For the past two years, a "contributor" (IP Address 208.120.47.96) has repeatedly prevented other contributors, including myself, from making minor edits to the St. John's University, NY, page that eliminate irrelevant and biased language. By viewing the Discussion Page for St. John's University, you will see that the user in question (IP Address 208.120.47.96) has continuously reversed edits by many contributors who have questioned the information 208.120.47.96 has inserted. By looking at his/her Talk Page, you will see that this user has been blocked in the past for "edit wars." My current request follows my efforts, over the past few days, to add neutral, factual edits about campus housing and to revise a negative reference to a 43-year-old magazine quote that adds nothing to the topic (about a faculty strike in 1966). The contributor reversed by edits again this morning and threatened me with being blocked if I tried another edit. Please help.

Statement by Newyorkborn

For the past two years, a "contributor" (IP Address 208.120.47.96) has seemed to exercise illegal "ownership" over the page for St. John's University, NY, preventing myself and others from making minor edits that eliminate irrelevant and biased language. As the Discussion Page for St. John's University shows, the user in question (IP Address 208.120.47.96) has continuously reversed edits by varied contributors who have questioned the information 208.120.47.96 has inserted. As the user in question's Talk Page shows, he/she has been blocked in the past for "edit wars." This current arbitration request follows my recent efforts to add minor, neutral, factual edits about campus housing and to revise a negative reference to a 43-year-old magazine quote that adds nothing to the topic (a 1966 faculty strike). The contributor reversed my edits again this morning and warned that I'd be blocked if I tried another edit. Please help.

Statement by {Party 2}

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/2)

Seeyou

Initiated by Jeremy at 18:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Jéské Couriano: Initiator
  • Seeyou:
  • Famousdog:
  • Ronz:
  • PSWG1920:
  • SamuelTheGhost:
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Practically every step attempted has been an RfC or informal mediation; part of the issue is abuse of such by Seeyou. As such, every RfC and MedCab case filed will be listed here:

Statement by Jéské Couriano

Seeyou has been disruptive as regards Bates method and POV forks thereof that he tends to create for the past year-and-a-half, abouts. I initially got involved with the article after a bunch of open proxies targeted it; looking at the talk page then I had noticed that Seeyou was hurling accusations of bias on the talk page, especially towards Famousdog (talk · contribs), whom he was accusing of meatpuppeting on behalf of another user who'd only ever edited the article once. As I detailed in this user-conduct RfC, Seeyou has been less than collegial for most of the time he's been on the article.

Long story short: Seeyou has been accusing editors of loads of behavioral no-nos: payola, sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, and, most recently, deliberate insertion of original research. In each instance he has given zero proof for his accusations, while in the meanwhile violating several rules himself, particularly WP:Canvassing (, as examples) and WP:Assume good faith. He has twice created POV forks of Bates Method in an attempt to circumvent the consensus, and has canvassed heavily, so much so that he is under sanctions specifically prohibiting him from making such edits (). He has constantly posted "Objective reader" sections (links given are examples, but not the full extent) on the talk page and screamed foul whenever they were removed, including overuse of RfC templates on Talk:Bates method (, , as examples). He has constantly used RfC and MedCab as his own personal pitbulls against editors in revenge for filing RfCs or mediations against him; see the MedCab cases above.

Even more recently, Seeyou has been threatening to bring the underlying content dispute to Arbitration, despite several editors warning him that the ArbCom does not interfere in such. So far as I am concerned, the only actual content dispute is in Seeyou's mind; the consensus was reached long ago and thus far only Seeyou has claimed otherwise.

I urge the ArbCom to accept this case and to focus on the behavioral aspects, particularly as regards Seeyou in re Bates method. -Jeremy 20:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In re SamuelTheGhost's statement

Samuel, I feel obligated to point out that I have tried to be very careful to stay out of the content dispute, since I (α) do not know anything about the Bates method and (β) am incredibly leery of editing in areas that are political, polemic, or under ArbCom sanction (in this case, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience). From what I saw as an outsider looking in, there was a consensus, so please understand that I mean no misinformation by my statement regarding a consensus. My main concern is Seeyou's behavior, which hasn't been collegial what-so-ever and in many cases has been downright childish. -Jeremy 23:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I completely accept that clarification and your good faith. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


In re Seeyou's statement

Seeyou, it's your behavior since before I even started showing up at Talk:Bates method that is under review. It is your very recent, repeated, baseless accusations of WP:COI that prompted me to file the request. And, if you'll read below your statement, the ArbCom will open the case soon. -Jeremy 20:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeske / Jeremy, Which accusation ? Provide the reference with my exact words. Thanks in advance. Seeyou (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
in particular, Seeyou. -Jeremy 21:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Famousdog

I have to agree with everything that Jeske has said above. I have frequently been the victim of accusations of sockpuppetry (,) and conflict of interest (,) with regards my editing of the Bates method article. Despite my attempts to find a compromise () and the fact that I originally pointed out the suspicious proxy behaviour that Seeyou then accused me of () Seeyou has consistently assumed bad faith towards me. Seeyou is clearly scientifically illiterate () and has preferred to attempt circumvention of the fact that his (fringe) POV is not represented on Misplaced Pages by the creation of various POV forks and, lately, by simply attacking other editors on his talk page (the only forum he has left).

One final note. I realise that the anonymity of Misplaced Pages is one of its strengths, but I would be more than willing to reveal my true identity to a third party, if it will help to resolve this dispute. I have a PhD in vision science, work in an Optometry department and I have published extensively in peer-reviewed journals on various aspects of the visual system. I suspect Seeyou will not be so forthcoming with regards the source of his expertise, but perhaps he will take this opportunity to establish his credentials. Famousdog (talk) 09:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SamuelTheGhost

I was the one against whom Seeyou made the most direct accusation of WP:COI (even though he can't spell my username). To explain what he said there, there is a document, the Woods report, whose general contents and conclusions we all know. Seeyou wrongly believes that it is crucial to his arguments. I have a copy. He blames me for the fact that the full text is not available on the web.

Just for the record, I have no WP:COI regarding Bates Method and Seeyou has no grounds to suppose that I have.

I must contradict what Jéské Couriano said above. There is a long-running content dispute about the balance of the Bates method article. In policy terms, an over-strict interpretation of WP:RS has been used as a major argument to infringe both the spirit and the letter of WP:NPOV. Amongst other matters, this has been used to prevent mention of the content or even in most cases the existence of pro-Bates literature and websites. The relative stability that has been achieved represents the balance of forces amongst the editors, rather than a genuine consensus, still less a true WP:NPOV.

Seeyou is frustrated by this situation, but has not dealt with it well. Instead of trying to get some sensible use of pro-Bates literature he has demanded that we recognise the primacy of his favourite authors. The other editors have strongly different positions from each other. Instead of seeking agreement from some of those editors on specific modest points, Seeyou has repeatedly accused them of being united against him, which of course has eventually become true. The record of his bad bahaviour is, regrettably, given accurately above. It is difficult to know what to do, but it has to be admitted that the project would be better off without him. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Seeyou

To Jeske or Jeremy, Since my past behaviour did n't result in a arbitration case. Which recent contribution of me triggered this arbitration case. Be very specific and clear Jeske ! To the arbitrators : Read wery careful what Jeske is going to mention. And take a look at the past discussions in the Bates method article. In the Natural vision improvement article. And on my talkpage . Focus on the facts and provided references and arguments. Then you might start to see what is really going on here. See also this link . The initinal argument is not valid anymore. So famousdog just creates a new one. Which is also invalid by the way. Seeyou (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Query from AGK

Coren writes that,

MedCom opines that this is strictly a behavioral issue

I don't think this case has been the subject of formal mediation. Could you clarify what you mean? AGK 13:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (8/0/0/0)