| Revision as of 10:54, 11 August 2009 view sourceJack Merridew (talk | contribs)34,837 edits →Statement by Jack Merridew: Oh dear... sorry, wrong Drew...← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024 view source MJL (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors42,350 edits →Sabotage of Lindy Li's page: removing case as premature: declinedTag: Manual revert | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:ARC|a guide on talk page archiving|H:ARC}} | |||
| <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{-}} | |||
| = <includeonly>]</includeonly> = | |||
| </noinclude> | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}} | |||
| <includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for arbitration}}}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{NOINDEX}} | |||
| == Javert, Rjd0060, and Jimbo == | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}} | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ]rew ] ] '''at''' 04:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude> | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{userlinks|Drew R. Smith}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{userlinks|Javert}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Rjd0060}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Jimbo Wales}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Prodego}}<small>as an unblocking admin</small> | |||
| <!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. --> | |||
| ;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | |||
| <small>However, as I am not allowed to contact Jimbo, could someone else please do it for me?</small> | |||
| * I notified<sup class="plainlinks"></sup> Jimbo for you ;) <span style="text-transform: lowercase;">Cheers, ] 04:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)</span> | |||
| === Statement by Drew R. Smith === | |||
| Attempted to engage ] in conversation about founder/co-founder issue. I was neither uncivil, nor was I breaking any policies. Jimbo removed the section. I asked a new question, and ] removed it. This is in direct confict with our rules against removal of content which roughly state ''Removal of content is prohibited except on ones own userpage''. Since I posted nothing on Javerts userpage, and therefore Javert had no right to remove it, I added it back. ] removed it once again. I added it back once again. Rjd0060 then blocked me. I was subsequentlly unblocked by ] under the proviso that I not bother Jimbo anymore. | |||
| My complaint is two-fold. | |||
| 1) Javert and Rjd0060 were wrong to remove my questions from Jimbos talk page. That is for Jimbo, and Jimbo alone to do. | |||
| 2) Jimbo Wales is not above our rules. According to ] Userpages are subject to ] which states that promoting propaganda is not allowed. However, Jimbo Wales has been passing himself off as the sole founder of Misplaced Pages for ages now, with no reproach. | |||
| ; Response to statement by ] : That is because this is involving admins and Jimbo. Straight to the top is the way to go in this case. ]rew ] ] 04:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ; Response to statement by ] : And I ask you to read ]. The point of this arbcom case, is that Javert and Rjd0060 broke that rule. I have not broken any rule by reintroducing what they removed.]rew ] ] 06:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Viridae === | |||
| Blimey. Mountain, meet your little brother molehill. Welcome to the family. (No attempt at other forms of DR attempted.) ]] 04:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Jack Merridew === | |||
| Well, it probably is time someone took a ] look at Drew's behavior. This seems not the place or case, though. Cheers, ] 04:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ; Oh dear... | |||
| : Seems it was all <span class="plainlinks"></span>. Cheers, ] 10:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by {whomever's next;} === | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.'' | |||
| === Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/0/0) === | |||
| *'''Reject''' as premature - Drew, you first the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag to ] before using his talk page. After being reverted by ] you left an ] edit summary with ''rv Bullshit does need citations. Userpage or not''. You then went back and added the tag with ''per WP:SOAP, WP:UP#NOT, and "verifiability, not truth'' as an edit summary. It was just after that and after the warning at your talk page when you first used his talk page. I am wondering why couldn't you contact him beforehand according to our norms and practices. There's nothing to arbitrate here as this is a kind of ] that is best dealt with the community —that same community which is eligible to discuss the issue with Jimbo via proper channels. Individual questionable actions to user pages is considered disruption and are blockable. Now, please read this ]. -- ] - <small>]</small> 06:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:@Drew: Well, then use the ]. There's no way for me (not talking on behalf of all ArbCom members here) to accept a case based on a single incident which was started by you in an inappropriate manner. This why we have administrators' talk pages, AN/I, mediation, RfCs. Arbitration is the last resort. -- ] - <small>]</small> 06:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == 194x144x90x118 == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 05:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{userlinks|Erik9}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{userlinks|194x144x90x118}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Scjessey}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Dayewalker}} | |||
| *{{admin|SarekOfVulcan}} | |||
| *{{admin|PhilKnight}} | |||
| *{{admin|GTBacchus}} | |||
| *{{admin|FisherQueen}} | |||
| *{{admin|Jehochman}} | |||
| <!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. --> | |||
| ;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| * ] | |||
| * | |||
| === Statement by Erik9 === | |||
| ] has a considerable history of personal attacks, edit warring, and generally uncooperative and belligerent behavior, as detailed in ] - see and as characteristic examples of this editor's discourse. Despite the concerns expressed at the RFC, this user has engaged in further edit warring against everyone else editing ] , and, when warned regarding this behavior, responded with the following terse comment: "stuff it.". This editor has also expressly "rejected" a request that he edit in a manner consistent with ], and has characterized an editor requesting that he moderate his behavior as "act like some sort of a barbarian" . Since no administrators have been willing to terminate 194x144x90x118's disruption, I am requesting that the Arbitration Committee resolve the situation. ] (]) 05:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Sjakkalle === | |||
| Although I am not listed as a party, I urge the ArbCom to accept this case, and intend to submit evidence to the case if accepted. My experience with 194x144x90x118 is that he is argumentative and his edits are unconstructive. A large percentage of his activity consists of edit-warring and personal attacks on the Bobby Fischer and related chess articles. The user conduct RFC has not led to any improvement, to the contrary, he dived in, guns blazing, into a ''third'' battle in order to push a pro-Icelandic nationalist agenda, mostly on the ] article, first by these soapbox postings , then by fighting to introduce a "criticism" section to the EU article, even trying to change the EU/FAQ page in order to pave the way for a criticism section, and . 194x144x90x118 has done nothing to address his behavior, whenever he has been challenged on it he instead complains about the behavior of ] and others (see ]). While I can tolerate some argumentativeness from an editor who is clearly here to contribute in good faith to articles, my feeling is that 194x144x90x118 is using Misplaced Pages as a ] in order to cause other editors distress or push a personal or political agenda. ] ] 07:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by PhilKnight === | |||
| The ] has highlighted there are concerns about 194x144x90x118's conduct in regard to other articles, not just ]. I appreciate the community probably could handle this, however given the problems are over several unrelated pages, the more structured approach of the ArbCom process would probably be preferable. ] (]) 10:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Scjessey=== | |||
| I am unfamiliar with 194's activities outside the realm of the ] article; however, I completely agree that other forms of dispute resolution concerning this user have been unsuccessful. 194 continues to be a largely unproductive contributor, with most edits being confined to obstructionist article reversions and dismissive, argumentative comments in talk page discourse. Should the case be accepted, I am able to submit evidence in the form of an annotated, diff-based summary of 194's DreamHost-related activities that will illustrate the problem. -- ] (]) 11:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ;Response to Jehochman:The COI allegations were at ], if you recall. -- ] (]) 18:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ;Response to Flyingpenguin1:The rejected case referred to activities surrounding a specific article, whereas this request involves the activities of a specific editor across a group of articles. -- ] (]) 19:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Jehochman === | |||
| I've gone the extra mile to assume good faith of 194. That's not working. Can anybody give a reason not to indef them for disruptive editing? If there is no administrator wanting to arbitrate this, let's place a community ban and be done with the matter. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : To Carcharoth: there have been allegations of COI editing on ]. These matters can be easily handled via ]. They hardly require arbitration. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Heh, the arbitration business is slow these days. The committee wants something to do. Very well. Have at it. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Comment by ] === | |||
| ArbCom already rejected this once... | |||
| === Statement by SarekOfVulcan === | |||
| I pretty much said everything relevant the last time around. | |||
| ;Response to Carcharoth: Of course. I was well aware when I filed the that I was putting myself under as much scrutiny as Judas and 194x, and I don't expect that has changed here. --] (]) 12:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by GTBacchus === | |||
| My involvement in this case is minimal. I warned ] for personal attacks back in June . I said at the time that, were he the target of such remarks, we would be equally quick to warn or block his attacker as necessary. The next month, he posted a thread to my talk page (]) asking that I make good on that assurance. His initial post was unclear, but then he pointed to made by ], which I agree were inappropriate. Unfortunately, this happened just about the time that I disappeared for a week-and-a-half, due to offline concerns. Thus, I was slow to get back to him, and have only just now properly replied. <p> It is my impression that ] would do well to consider a change in tactics. It is also my impression that it takes two to tango, and I would encourage review of the actions of all involved editors. I'd hate to see someone "win" a content dispute by getting their opponent(s) "in trouble". I hope that ] is willing to change his tune enough to decrease the amount of static he encounters, and thus increase his success here at Misplaced Pages. <p> Further, I hope that ArbCom will consider not only blatant personal attacks, but also escalatory and combative behavior in general. Ideally, we can teach editors to swim better, and not have to make anyone leave the water. I hope the involved editors are willing to learn a stroke or two. -]<sup>(])</sup> 18:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Dayewalker === | |||
| I've been holding off on commenting here, waiting on word from 194x to hopefully get the point that his behavior is getting under the skin of quite a few other editors. I'll back up everything that's been said already, although I try not to interact with 194x much anymore after he came to my page and basically threatened to stalk me in retaliation for some perceived slight. | |||
| We first crossed paths on ], where he basically deadlocked the article and resisted any change. 194x has been a problem on every page he frequents, and his steadfast refusal to learn or abide by Misplaced Pages guidelines is a problem. However, I don't really see this as a matter for Arbcom. If you guys have nothing else on the docket, go right ahead, but it's not like 194x has a long history of positive contributions to the project to balance out his strong negative influence. I think the fact that he's a sporadic contributor may be the only thing that's kept him from attracting admin attention so far. ] (]) 05:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.'' | |||
| === Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/2) === | |||
| *Awaiting statement from 194x144x90x118. I would caution (based on what I recall of the DreamHost dispute) that the others named here that are involved in disputes with 194x144x90x118 would also have their conduct examined, and that this might lead to sanctions for more than one party. In other words, reframing this from a particular dispute, to an editor-centred case, widens the scope to other disputes, but doesn't narrow the scope to examining a single editor. Rather, the conduct of all involved parties in relevant unresolved disputes is examined during an arbitration case. One of the problems raised with this sort of approach is that not all the individual disputes may have gone through dispute resolution, and only one editor (194x144x90x118) may have had an RFC on them. But that is part of the judgment needed when trying to balance a case scope with which parts of various disputes warrant arbitration. Thoughts on potential case scope from the parties would be useful. ] (]) 11:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Accept''' , there are obvious user conduct issues that need to addressed. ]] 19:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Waiting another day or two for any further statements. ] (]) 20:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **I've asked 194x... to let us know soon whether he plans to make a statement. If he does not, my vote will be to accept. ] (]) 18:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Accept''' Per Flo. Last RFAR on this was declined on heavily split vote and the problems are still there. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 21:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Accept''' and offer to draft the case. Been a little while since I've done one. ] 21:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Accept''' -- ] - <small>]</small> 13:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Accept''' ] (] '''·''' ]) 05:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024
"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC. Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
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 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motions| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
| 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.
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.
General guidance
|
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.