Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: 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 editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:33, 10 October 2009 editArcticocean (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Extended confirmed users46,227 edits Rm "Request for clarification: User:ChildofMidnight topic ban" (not archived).← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:38, 15 December 2024 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,049 edits →Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal: remove archived requestTag: Replaced 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-move-indef}}<div style="clear:both"></div></noinclude>
= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification|Requests for clarification|]}} =
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header}}


<includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for clarification and amendment}}}}</noinclude>
== Request for clarification: ] ==
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}

<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
]
* {{userlinks|Abd}} (initiator):
]
* {{userlinks|William M. Connolley}}:
* {{userlinks|Enric Naval}}:

=== Questions by ] ===
What is the "purpose of Misplaced Pages" referred to in ]? The excerpt in question reads:

:"Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on an affected article if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the '''purpose of Misplaced Pages''', any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process."

In particular, is the purpose of Misplaced Pages ?

:"] ] needs to conform to the encyclopedia's reliable source criteria, not some measure of how much popular press individual articles in the peer reviewed literature have received, or any other arbitrary exception to the rules. There shouldn't be any exceptions to the reliable source criteria, not for articles on physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, religion, politics, voting methods, race, or any other subject. If there's a controversy, it should be settled in accordance with the best peer-reviewed secondary sources, not the opinion of persistent editors with an axe to grind, not by persistent editors with a conflict of interest, not by paid editors, and not by anyone who isn't qualified and willing to review the best peer-reviewed literature available on the subject. That's what we mean by 'the purpose of Misplaced Pages.'"

If not, in what way does the purpose of Misplaced Pages diverge from that description? Thank you for your consideration of these questions. ] (]) 08:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by Hipocrite ===
Are we going to have to deal with "new user" IP's alledging a history of malfeasance on this article even after sanctions have been declared on it? Is there anyone brave enough to actually enforce the sanctions placed on the article? ] (]) 12:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by EdChem ===
Two observations...<p>
1) I suspect that, by ''Purpose of Misplaced Pages'', ArbCom means exactly what they have said under that title in numerous previous decisions, namely:
:''The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited.''

2) Hipocrite raises an important issue. Since the case ended, there have been several IP users suddenly appear, making comments showing a clear familiarity with WP processes and with the case. Whilst it is theoretically possible that he / she / they have been lurking and have chosen this moment to contribute, it seems to me to be much more likely that one or more existing users are choosing to post anonymously. This is seriously unhelpful to the goal of high-quality content development. If there is not already basis to take steps to address the situation (whether with semi-protection or checkuser or other) under the discretionary sanctions, then perhaps ArbCom might pass a quick motion to rectify the situation.<p>

By the way, I would like to register my appreciation to John Vandenberg for his helpful post at ] removing the resurrected section from the archives. ] (]) 13:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by William M. Connolley ===

Can someone please CU this IP? ] (]) 13:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by wholly uninvolved roux ===

Lo! Forsooth! 'Tis the sound of ducks.

I trust ArbCom won't waste their time with this. →&nbsp;]&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;13:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)</small>

=== Question by MastCell ===
This is obviously not a request for clarification, but a continued litigation of the case. But since we're here... could I ask for clarification on how the sudden influx of dynamic IPs advancing an agenda should be dealt with? It seems that the discretionary sanctions should simply the handling of this sort of editing in spirit, but they are quite legalistic in letter. I do think this latest iteration of the same old problem should be nipped in the bud, but I'm not ready to go to ] only to hear that a given IP address had not been formally notified of the discretionary sanctions. Or maybe I should just leave the poor Wikipedians who have to actually try to edit this article to their fate, but I thought I'd ask first. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 23:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by other user ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

=== Clerk notes ===

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* ''"Misplaced Pages is an online encyclopedia"''. That's the purpose. Everything else is a means to an end, and as flexible as it needs to be in order to reach that purpose. Being an encyclopedia implies that accuracy, reliability and (by conscious choice in the case of Misplaced Pages) neutrality are important objectives. One "fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages" when one compromises those objectives in the pursuit of a purpose other than making an encyclopedia; therefore things like advocacy, evangelism, and vandalism have no place here.<p>The quoted statement is, fundamentally, not inaccurate but looses sight of the purpose (the encyclopedia) by focusing blindly on one aspect of the ''means''. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 13:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
* Per Coren. Articles can be semi protected from IP disruption. IPs that are likely socks can be reported to SPI. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 21:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
*''maybe I should just leave the poor Wikipedians who have to actually try to edit this article to their fate'' - please do not do that, especially if anyone intends to do that to prove a point. There are plenty of ways to deal with this. If you are not familiar with the ways to deal with such things, please follow the advice given by Rlevse, though the IPs in question seem to be editing the talk page, not the article (semi-protecting talk pages should only be done in cases of extreme disruption). If anyone posting to this clarification is involved in the editing of the article, please deal with this by posting to a noticeboard to get uninvolved editors and admins aware of the situation. And if new editors turn up who have experience of other areas of Misplaced Pages, please take the time to explain things to them and treat them with more patience than you would a new editor or IP editor who you suspect of pushing an agenda. Agree with Coren on the clarification of the main point. Would also like to note that, as far as I can tell, no talk page FAQ has been written or started yet. If there is a FAQ, then new editors posting to the talk page can be pointed to that, instead of the lengthy and chaotic archives of the ] talk page, or (worse) repeating the same arguments over and over again. ] (]) 10:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
* One of the reasons I like and use semi-protection. I think that it is warranted here. ] (] '''·''' ]) 10:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
----

== Request for clarification: ] ==

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|Leatherstocking}} (initiator)
*{{admin|SlimVirgin}}

<!-- Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a user is an administrator. Anyone else affected must be notified that the request has been filed,
immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. The line for username2 can be removed if no-one else is affected. -->

=== Statement by Leatherstocking ===
I have received a message on my talk page from SlimVirgin, informing me in a very convoluted way that she believes that an edit I made "violates the spirit of BLP and the LaRouche 2 ArbCom case" and that "If that kind of editing continues," I'm "likely to be subject to sanctions." She also mentions that she is "writing this as an editor, not as an admin." I find this very strange for several reasons. Her argument against using a court filing as a source () may have some merit, although normally one would simply raise the issue on the article talk page and not leave a threatening note. I am concerned because SlimVirgin recently made an unsuccessful attempt to get me in trouble at the ANI board (,) and this appears to be a follow-up effort. My specific questions are as follows:

1. What on earth does this have to do with ]? SlimVirgin claims that I'm "editing about someone perceived as an enemy of a movement you support." I'm not sure who is doing the "perceiving" here, but I looked on the two main LaRouche websites and found no mention of A.J. Weberman.. I also find SlimVirgin's accusation that the LaRouche movement is "a movement that I support" to be outrageous and unfounded. I made this sufficiently clear at the ANI discussion.

2. Is SlimVirgin's accusation that I am a supporter of the LaRouche movement a violation of ]?

3. This morning I restored material that I felt was improperly deleted by SlimVirgin, in This afternoon, she deleted it again, along with related material, in in which she cites ] as justification. Is this a permissable interpretation of LaRouche 2? It appears to me that SlimVirgin is arguing that Dennis King, or any other person "perceived as an enemy" of LaRouche, may not be criticized at Misplaced Pages, no matter for what reason and no matter how well sourced the criticism. By her logic, if anyone adds material critical of King or others, that person is transformed into a supporter of LaRouche, and is therefore, by her unusual interpretation of LaRouche 2, not permitted to edit.

4. At ], it says that ''It is also pointed out that the principles of ], formulated since that first case, must be applied strictly to all biographical material appearing in articles relating to the LaRouche movement.'' Since SlimVirgin was a party to that case, does this line have the effect of a specific instruction to her that she must not violate BLP at LaRouche articles?

:''Responses to other statements:'' Will Beback and SlimVirgin are using some truly tortured logic here. They seem to be arguing that if LaRouche doesn't like the Yippies, then editors ''must add only flattering material to articles on Yippies'', or be tarred with the brush of being a "LaRouche editor" (that's Step #6 of ].) The fact of the matter is, I opened an account here because I noticed that a number of persons close to the Yippies, particularly ]/] and ]/]. were exploiting Misplaced Pages for purposes of self-promotion (which is the sort of thing at which Yippies are known to excel.) I was only vaguely aware of LaRouche at that time. I began to watch Dking participate in conflicts at the LaRouche articles and I noticed that Dking had a small group of allies who were using tactics that I believed to be ], and I began to oppose them, which seems to have made me a target. My edits at "LaRouche" articles have always been made from the standpoint of asking that BLP and other policies be strictly observed, but Will And SlimVirgin are misrepresenting them to the effect that if I remove material that violates BLP, or restore sourced material that has been deleted without cause, I am said to be "adding positive material or deleting negative material from the LaRouche articles." In fact, recent disputes have been due to a team effort by Will and SlimVirgin to entirely re-write, from a POV agenda, several articles which I felt were stable and well-balanced.

:One other item that needs to be addressed: Will mentions that I violated the forum shopping rule. This is true; I violated it because I was unaware of it. As soon as it was brought to my attention, I stopped. This request for clarification, to my mind, is an unrelated matter; I made the request after receiving a threatening note from SlimVirgin on my talk page. Since I was being threatened, I felt it was urgent that I get a clarification of the policy. --] (]) 20:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

====Reply to SlimVirgin====

I believe that the ArbCom decision was intended to prevent POV pushing. But SlimVirgin's re-interpretation seems to be intended to prevent POV pushing only from the pro-LaRouche camp, while giving almost unlimited license to POV pushing from the anti-LaRouche camp. It seems that anyone who opposes SlimVirgin's edits must necessarily be pro-LaRouche, and therefore any and all tactics to shut that person up are acceptable. Here is a cute logical trick, akin to "have you stopped beating your wife?: ''Whether Leatherstocking is a member of the movement or just a sympathizer doesn't matter.'' False dichotomy; there is a third option, which happens to be the correct one: I tend to react if I see what looks like bullies who are gaming the system. If I saw these tactics at work in some other group of biographical articles, sooner or later I would feel obliged to get involved in that conflict as well.

SlimVirgin makes this accusation: ''He's clearly intensely interested in and sympathetic toward LaRouche, and he's editing BLPs of people LaRouche doesn't like, and that's just not a good thing.'' I would say in response that SlimVirgin is clearly interested in and antipathetic toward LaRouche, and she's made several hundred hostile edits to his BLP in the past weeks, and that's just not a good thing. --] (]) 00:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

====Reply to Carcharoth====
I would like to re-emphasize that none of the material removed from ] by SlimVirgin originated with LaRouche. It's from ] and ]. Also, as I indicated, I had edited both ] and ] long before I edited a LaRouche article or got into any scrap with SlimVirgin. I would like to see the ArbCom issue ''very'' clear guidelines as to constitutes a "pro-LaRouche editor," so as to prevent the designation of others as "pro-LaRouche editors" from becoming a tactic available to POV-warriors. --] (]) 00:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by Will Beback ===
Leatherstocking has been engaged in forum shopping, posting complaints in the last week to ], ], ], ], and ]. Regarding Leatherstocking's assertion that he does not support the LaRouche movement, virtually all of his 1000+ edits have been to LaRouche-related topics or to critics of LaRouche. Inevitably, he's added positive material or deleted negative material from the LaRouche articles, while adding negative material to the articles about critics or their projects. Despite his protests, I don't think his assertions of being disinterested are credible. I am currently compiling diffs to show the many occasions on which he's edit warred on behalf of a banned user, or to add LaRouche material to the project. As for Slimvirgin's concern, I'm not sure I agree with her view that it violates WP:RFAR/LL2. However if the ArbCom is interested in this case, I'd urge them to wait until all of the evidence can be assembled. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 01:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding LaRouche v. Weberman, Weberman was a member of the ].
{{quote|''The LaRouchians used the false-witness tactic in 1981 against an enemy they hated even more than the environmentalists-the Yippies. To the LaRouchians, the Yippies were the symbol of everything evil--long-haired potheads who hung out at rock concerts, had no respect for Beethoven, and made constant trouble for LaRouche. They had picketed his headquarters with the banner "Nazis Make Good Lampshades" and on several occasions placed crank calls to Steinberg and Goldstein from pay phones. Aron Kay, the Yippie "pie man," was plotting to land a mushroom pie in LaRouche's face at the earliest opportunity. Security prepared a series of "Dope Dossiers" on Kay, Abbie Hoffman, and other Yippies. A New Solidarity editorial, "Cleaning Up the Filth," described them as "gutter scum" and announced that the dossiers were "being supplied to the New York City Police Department and other law enforcement agencies." The contents of the dossiers were oriented toward inducing the police to investigate the Yippies for possession or sale of marijuana. The LaRouchians were well aware that marijuana possession was low on the police list of priorities, but suggested that the police would thereby find evidence of Yippie involvement in terrorism and other serious crimes.''
|King, Dennis (1989). Lyndon LaRouche and the new American fascism, Doubleday. ISBN 9780385238809}}
That's from ], but ther's no reason to doubt it. According to a source that Leatherstocking wants to add, Weberman has served as King's webmaster in recent years. (King's book was written long before the Wolrd Wide Web.)

{{quote|''General Luis Giuffreda, who headed under President Reagan the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) between 1981 and 1985, testified to the considerable danger LaRouche's life, referenced numerous reports of threats to LaRouche, from terrorist groupings including the Baader-Meinhof band, Weather-Underground, Yippies and Jewish Defense League, as well as threats from the Communist Party U.S.A. and the Soviet Union directly. In view of these threats, LaRouche's security arrangements were much too little. LaRouche's security was not in the "Cadillac category" but rather in the "VW bug" category, and that LaRouche's living quarters reminded Gen. Giuffreda of his son's student housing.''
|"LaRouche Trial Fact Sheet", ''The following is a fact sheet documenting the background to the trial of Lyndon LaRouche at the Federal Court in Alexandria, Virginia USA.'', Posted by John Covici, 28 Mar 92}}
That is a LaRouche source. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 02:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Overall, I don't see why this can't be handled at ]. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 21:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

====Comment about source decisions====
Carcharoth is correct that decisions about sources have led to repeated disputes. (I think that is typical of contentious topics). Over the years, engaged editors have made extensive use of noticeboards, creating unusually long threads, sometimes with multiple HK socks participating at once. One stayed active for five months. As an experiment, editors of another contentious topic have create a project, ], to serve as a central place to find consensus on issues like sourcing that apply to several articles. (It's based on ]). However there are many editors involved in the Rawat articles. The LaRouche articles have only three regular editors: myself, Leatherstocking (LS), and HK's sock accounts. (Slimvirgin has had a flurry of activity recently, but she's been mostly inactive for the past two years. Dking edits occasionally but is mostly retired. Cberlet is entirely retired.) (Besides LS and HK, the only other editor to make significant pro-LaRouche edits was Cognition. A recent checkuser finding showed that he may have been a sock of 172, to everyone's astonishment.) So I don't think the project concept would work if there are only two unbanned editors who are regularly involved. We could seek to form a task force of another project, though deciding which one would be appropriate could be tricky. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 05:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

===Statement by SlimVirgin===
1. Leatherstocking is clearly a LaRouche editor. He says he's not, but his entire contribution history (since 2007) says otherwise. He edits articles about LaRouche, and about LaRouche's "enemies," and about the friends of LaRouche's enemies, to add material that would be favoured by the LaRouche movement. When he's not doing that, he's posting on the BLP, RS, and NPOV noticeboards, or on AN/I and AE, trying to cause problems for editors who oppose him. Every request to Leatherstocking to change his ways causes him to file more complaints or requests for clarification (like this one), which takes up yet more time.

2. to him today concerned , which includes in the lead of ] that Weberman manages ]'s website. Dennis King is LaRouche's biographer, widely disliked within the LaRouche movement. The edit was a BLP violation because it was based on a court document that no secondary source has written about and, further, was posted on a dubious website. BLP says: ]

3. In addition (and this is a separate issue from the BLP violation above), the LaRouche 2 ArbCom case cautioned named LaRouche editors not to edit ] or make edits about him elsewhere. Although the ruling does not name Leatherstocking, the spirit of the ruling certainly applies to him. It says: ]

Georgewilliamherbert is the admin who's been keeping an eye on LaRouche issues, so I told him about my warning to Leatherstocking, and asked if he would look out for the BLP issues.

Will knows more about this editor than I do, so I'm not in a position to provide more diffs about him at this point, in case more are needed. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 01:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

====Reply to Vassyana====
Vassyana, there are several clauses in LaRouche 2 that could apply, for example (bold added):

{{quotation|8.3.3.1 Ban extended<p>

5.1) Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 is modified so that the remedies applied in Lyndon LaRouch 2 are applied to Cognition (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), and '''the general ban on LaRouche-related article editing is expanded to include ], ], and ] (and their talk pages)'''. }}

The general ban on editing was that anyone editing like Herschelkrustofsky should stay away from LaRouche-related articles. The decision says (bold added):

{{quotation|8.1.5 One user or several.<p>

For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets '''or several users with similar behavior''' they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets."}}

The remedy above (8.3.3.1 "Ban extended") extended the definition of "LaRouche-related articles" to cover ], ], and ], and their talk pages, because these are people that LaRouche and his supporters regard as enemies, and some inappropriate edits were being made to them. In fact, the two BLPs were created by Herschelkrustofsky in the first place.

Leatherstocking is not Herschelkrustofsky but his editing is the same. He has been editing ], and has been adding material about King to other articles e.g. . That edit ''also'' violated BLP because it was based on a primary source, and the issue has not been mentioned by secondary sources. BLP doesn't allow that.

The basic problem is this: for the past five years at least, accounts associated with the LaRouche movement have used Misplaced Pages to create articles about LaRouche's enemies, to add little barbs to existing BLPs, and to add conspiracy theories to BLPs and to other articles about the BLP subjects. Most of it was sourced to LaRouche publications. Sometimes there were other sources, but almost never good ones.

This used to happen a lot before we had BLP. Now, it seems clear to me that the ''spirit'' of BLP (even though it doesn't actually say this) is that people with personal axes to grind about living people shouldn't be editing articles about those people. The more we mature as a project, the more clarity there is around that issue. ], for example, should probably stay away from ] too, even though he's LaRouche's published biographer and knows a lot about him. But there were legal threats between them a few years ago, and obviously he had to immerse himself in LaRouche to write the biography, and he still maintains a website about LaRouche. That degree of offwiki involvement, even if 100 percent legitimate, probably means he should leave it to others to add his information to the LaRouche article. Keeping a distance in such a case protects LaRouche, King, ''and'' Misplaced Pages.

Whether Leatherstocking is a member of the movement or just a sympathizer doesn't matter. He's clearly intensely interested in and sympathetic toward LaRouche, and he's editing BLPs of people LaRouche doesn't like, and that's just not a good thing.

Finally (sorry for the length), the ArbCom did, as you say, explicitly address this situation in 2007 in an addition to LaRouche 2 (bold added):

{{quotation|8.5 Post-decision motion passed<p>

The findings of fact of the original decision ], closed in September 2004, referred to two problematic behaviours:<p>

:* a pattern of adding original material, not an editor's own, but that of Lyndon LaRouche, to Misplaced Pages articles,
:* a '''pattern of political advocacy and propaganda advancing the viewpoints''' of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement.

The Arbitration Committee affirms that editor behaviour amounting to such patterns is not accepted on Misplaced Pages. Administrators should draw the attention of editors to these standing principles, which should be known by any editor engaging closely in LaRouche-related articles. After due warning, explanation, and reference to the basic unacceptability of POV pushing on Misplaced Pages, proportionate blocks may be applied by administrators. Cases of difficulty may be referred directly to the Committee for clarification.<p>

It is also pointed out that the principles of ], formulated since that first case, must be applied strictly to all biographical material appearing in articles relating to the LaRouche movement.}}

<font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 15:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by other user ===

=== Clerk notes ===

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* (Disclosure: I performed a CheckUser during one of the recent AN/I threads and asked some experienced admins to review the matter, but I have no other involvement.) Will, I believe that if there is sufficient evidence to act that action may be taken at AN/I or by forwarding the information to the functionaries list without the direct intervention of the Committee. Regarding the applicability of the case per the clarification request, I believe (and she may correct me if I am mistaken) that SlimVirgin is referring to: ]. I am not endorsing any accusations or defenses in this instance, but it does seem that it clearly applies if the concerns are founded. ] (]) 10:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
* I agree with Vassyana that SlimVirgin is probably correct that LL2 does seem to apply, but I see no reason to believe this needs to be handled by the committee directly at this time. As far as I can tell, AN/I and AE are suitable venues. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 12:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
* Vassyana sums up the position well. ] (] '''·''' ]) 21:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
* I agree with Vassyana's assessment of the situation, but the motion is not a remedy, just a restatement of the applicability of ordinary editorial policies. Editors in this topic area should have those policies in mind, not this motion. --]&nbsp;(]) 08:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
* I'm going to take a different tack here, to those of my colleagues, and step back and look at the wider picture. I looked at ], ] and then at articles on critics of the LaRouche movement (all in ]), articles such as ], ], ], ] and ]. Some of those articles are of borderline notability (others are much more notable), and risk becoming a battleground over what to add and remove about LaRouche material (as has happened here with Dennis King). My advice with respect to editor conduct would be to try and work out a unified approach to dealing with such matters, rather than arguing over the same things in different articles. Get some editorial agreement on a guideline on how to approach such things, and build on the arbitration remedies and motions, rather than using them a club. I also see that the arguments for and against various sources are scattered over lots of talk pages and discussion archives. A well-written summary for permanent reference would help here as well. ] (]) 10:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
----

Latest revision as of 05:38, 15 December 2024

Shortcut Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

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
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 clarification and amendment

Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

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

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131
Categories: