| Revision as of 18:22, 25 November 2009 view sourceJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,281 edits →Statement by Jehochman: request for redaction of mediation materials← 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}}__TOC__{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{-}} | |||
| </noinclude> | |||
| = <includeonly>]</includeonly> = | |||
| <includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for arbitration}}}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{NOINDEX}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}} | |||
| ⚫ | <noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude> | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}} | |||
| == FT2-Jehochman == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 13:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{admin|Jehochman}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{admin|FT2}} | |||
| *{{admin|Elonka}} | |||
| *{{admin|Alison}} | |||
| *{{admin|Bishonen}} | |||
| <!-- 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. --> | |||
| * I have notified everybody. | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| <!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration --> | |||
| * A couple hundred emails have been exchanged under supervision of three mediators. This process appears to have reached a state at which further progress is unlikely. | |||
| === Statement by Jehochman === | |||
| I am presently (and perhaps unwisely) a candidate in the Arbitration Committee elections. ], ], and ] have made serious accusations against me on the election pages. These accusations are based in part on private correspondence. Although this may not have been their intention, the effect is to smear my reputation, and leave me unable to respond properly and fully. I therefore request expedited consideration of this request to minimize any taint to the election. | |||
| Despite repeated requests, FT2 has refused to share with me the log files on which his accusations are based. He has however shared them with Alison, and possibly others, claiming that Checkusers are empowered to review private evidence. My understanding is that only ArbCom is the proper body to review private correspondence of this nature. There is no issue of sock puppetry here at all. FT2 has not provided any explanation why he cannot share the log files with me. In late September I suffered a hard disk failure and therefore do not have any log files from the time frames in question. Moreover, because I value privacy greatly, I often do not log conversations as I have no intention whatsoever of sharing them. To me "private" means private. | |||
| The mediators have included ], ], and ]. Through their efforts substantial disagreements were resolved. Without any '']'', I posted unequivocal statements and in an attempt to set the record straight and end the controversy. Neither Elonka nor FT2 have acknowledged my statements as ending the dispute. Disputes should not be allowed to fester endlessly, nor should dispute resolution be allowed to consume an excessive amount of time and volunteer resources. | |||
| I request the following steps: | |||
| # Evaluate one of the key underlying issues. Please check FT2's concerns expressed at ] and decide whether they are resolved or whether they deserve further review in light of my clarficiations. | |||
| # If FT2 or any other parties have related concerns about me, please review the confidential and the public evidence to determine what findings or remedies, if any, are needed. Hopefully the disputants would instead agree to ] rather than take up the Committee's time with issues that are ''very'' distantly removed from article writing. | |||
| In addition, I feel that ArbCom could help minimize needless strife and collateral damage in the community. For example, ] appears to have made a comment here obliquely referencing this dispute. This resulted in a case ban by ]. The ban was overturned as excessive, and at some point an ] sent a harassing email to Manning, leading to his departure from the project, according to Manning. That is the sort of exceedingly harmful strife and collateral damage I'd very much like to avoid: an experienced administrator getting banned, and an exceptional content contributor being driven away. | |||
| A motion setting out the events and the resolution would be an ideal result. Thank you for your kind consideration of these matters. ] (]) 15:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Below FT2 has violated the requirement that mediation is confidential. I request his characterizations of my comments during mediation be redacted. He's a former arbitrator. He should know better. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by FT2 === | |||
| Jehochman's adminship has been in question a while now, in the background. A dialog overseen by Lar (who was asked to opine) has been taking place some time now. | |||
| Unknown to the community, Jehochman was on the verge of admin RFC, and to determine an appropriate final resolution. | |||
| The categorically evidenced issues due to be raised were that, as an experienced administrator and self-described "senior editor", {{user|Jehochman}}: | |||
| # Used dispute resolution processes such as RFC, recall and RFAR for "political games" (his own candid admission). He did this mainly out of personal ] and anger at another user, to try and get that user desysopped. | |||
| # Gave unequivocally false or misleading statements to the community at ], and again at ], knowing they were false, in seeking a role of high trust. | |||
| # Improperly by poor adminship and unfounded claims helped derail an RFC, where he now agrees he acted improperly, made unfounded claims and did not check any evidence. He now admits the RFC issues should have obtained serious review. The issues in that RFC remain open. | |||
| # Privately knowing all these matters were accurate and fairly stated, he further denied them at ACE2009, and made repeated (and untruthful) claims that they were just bad faith and unfounded, and he was sorry to see others act this way. | |||
| # Continued making these claims even when another Checkuser/Oversighter (]) labeled the evidence as "unequivocal", and his posts as "deliberate community deception". | |||
| # Appears to have "gamed" privacy (claiming on little or no grounds, that the matters were old, irelevant, or would infringe others), apparently to prevent other users seeing the evidence of his own poor position, and to continue make his own unfounded claims without contrary evidence. | |||
| # Another functionary (Lar) was therefore also shown the evidence and asked for an opinion. Faced with questions by Lar, Jehochman engaged in productive dialog, and although unwilling until forced, he has now finally admitted the substance of these matters to the community. | |||
| However a further concern then arose. Having made the agreed disclosures, at the point of setting up a previously agreed RFC, Jehochman suddenly "flipped" from amicable dialog to wild and irrational floods of ludicrous claims. This ran across several emails, suddenly maintaining "out of the blue" that others are showing bad faith, weird conspiracy theories, not having seen the full evidence, withdrawing permission to quote, etc. If I hadn't seen it I would not have believed it. | |||
| Lar can confirm there was no provocation nor dispute; the email dialog was consistently amicable and precisely and smoothly followed prior agreements -- so much so that Jehochman had already been discussing RFC titles. I ]ed his outbursts and Lar has offered dialog. But Jehochman admits that he had a "hot temper" and could at times "turn " (agreed paraphrase). He repeated the same in another email, then filed RFAR instead, naming people as parties regardless of involvement and claiming that it was going nowhere. | |||
| All this is categorically evidenced. Lar can confirm Jehochman's past willingness (before the recent reversal) to show the log snips to the wider community. A copy of the entire email thread will be submitted as evidence to the Committee. It speaks for itself. | |||
| The community was due to be asked within days to help conclude Jehochman's case by reviewing the agreed incidents and evidence, asking questions, and determining any final decision. | |||
| Jehochman appears to have "flipped" and instead suddenly decided to seek RFAR without any especial good reason or desired result. That's fine, if Arbcom want to consider it. Personally I'd have preferred community review, but it's his choice, and the concerns probably are suitable for this venue. | |||
| I'll add diffs for all of this in a bit (and may refine it), or evidence them direct to Arbcom. Lar and Jehochman have seen it all anyway. | |||
| ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 18:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by {Party 3} === | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.'' | |||
| === Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) === | |||
| * | |||
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.