| Revision as of 04:47, 2 April 2010 view sourceHodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers31,217 edits →Statement by Biophys: archived links← 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> | |||
| <br clear="all"/> | |||
| <includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for arbitration}}}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{NOINDEX}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}} | |||
| == COI edits in respect of living individuals == | |||
| <noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude> | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> '''at''' 15:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{userlinks|JzG}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{userlinks|TimLambert}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|John Quiggin}} | |||
| *{{iplinks|99.142.1.101}}/{{iplinks|99.144.192.23}}/{{iplinks|99.141.252.167}}/{{iplinks|99.151.169.221}}/{{iplinks|99.151.166.95}}/{{iplinks|99.144.192.74}}/{{iplinks|99.144.249.249}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Serenity}} | |||
| <!-- 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. --> | |||
| * http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AJohn_Quiggin&diff=352352835&oldid=352056619 | |||
| * http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ATimLambert&diff=352352869&oldid=349690502 | |||
| * http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3A99.142.1.101&diff=352352931&oldid=350329018 | |||
| * http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ASerenity&diff=352352986&oldid=273385184, http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:99.144.249.249 | |||
| ;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 --> | |||
| * ] | |||
| * | |||
| === Statement by JzG === | |||
| An anonymous party posted an aggressive series of messages on Jimbo's talk page claiming that two people, Tim Lambert and John Quiggin, editing Misplaced Pages under their own names, were editing biographies in furtherance of off-wiki disputes as alluded to here . | |||
| I analysed the edits and summarised them at ]. Although IP99 continued fishing for problem edits and found a few at a new venue one of the individuals he'd named had made no edits at all to the originally stated to be the locus of dispute. It became apparent to me that IP99 has been carrying out a personal campaign against at least Lambert, e.g. - ] is almost all about Lambert or removing references to him from mainspace - something he failed to mention under his later IPs. while calling for action against activists, the IP appears to me to be an activist himself, and in calling for a rain of hellfire on the heads of people who have in some cases not edited the articles in question for years, he raises very much the prospect of an equal reaction to his own campaign against named and identifiable individuals via Misplaced Pages. | |||
| Example: user John Quiggin (who is ]) is cited as a source for a particular publication; Quiggin states that Lambert is a co-author but IP99 persistently removes Lambert's name because third-party sources do not identify him as co-author. That seems to me to be petty. There is no dispute that our user John Quiggin is the main credited author and we have no reason at all to dispute his own statement that Lambert is a co-author. Why go to such lengths to exclude the mere mention of a name? | |||
| I reviewed the edits about which the IP complained, most of which were long stale (dating back in one case to 2005) and the response to feedback, which in the case of Quiggin is reasonable, in the case of Lambert is robust but not beyond reason, and in the case of the IP is an outright denial that any issues exist other than with Lambert and Quiggin. Another article, {{la|John Lott}} was thrown in late in the day, user Serenity is a SPA editing that article with a sympathetic POV; the subject is on record as using sockpuppets to boost his reputation in other areas, inviting the inevitable suspicion here. | |||
| Based on response to feedback and my judgment of the likely future problems from the three based on their willingness to accept feedback I made the proposals at . I believe that the hierarchy of problems puts Quiggin lowest, as an academic who has made common and elementary errors over the difference between Misplaced Pages and academic publishing, and who seems to have had no difficulty in accepting that; Lambert somewhere in the middle, as a blogger and activist with some issues accepting that his edits may be conflicted or inappropriate; and the IP at the top as a disruptive pursuer of an obvious vendetta per ]. | |||
| Some think that since the IP raised a problem, albeit in inflated terms and often years after the event and without any real effort to help the individuals concerned to self-correct, he should basically get a free pass on his own behaviour. I disagree and I'm not alone in that. Unfortunately at both venues of discussion the matter is stalled due to division along familiar factional lines and the usual argument back to the objective rightness or wrongness of what's being said, rather than focusing on the real issue of editorial behaviour as documented at ]. I think it's fair that any further attempts to resolve this dispute will only result in further entrenchment, not breaking of the deadlock. | |||
| @Steve Smith: Yes. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by MastCell === | |||
| I'm not sure a case is necessary. Leaving aside the depressingly predictable input from climate-change warriors on both sides, there seems to be a fairly sound uninvolved-editor consensus in favor of Guy's proposed resolution . I don't think we should create a precedent where every administrative action that touches on AGW has to go through ArbCom. Any administrative action against a partisan is bound to be met with vocal outrage from other partisans on the same side. It has ever been thus, and admins are supposed to be able to see past that and gauge actual, non-partisan community feedback on their actions. I think Guy has done that here; let's encourage reasonable administrative initiatives, because that's what the area needs. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 01:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by John Quiggin === | |||
| I think it's correct to say that this dispute is really about AGW, and, to a lesser extent, other science issues (notably tobacco and DDT/malaria). In editing these and other areas, including economic issues where my own views are somewhat distinct from the mainstream position, I've sought to apply ], which, in my interpretation, means giving most weight to the mainstream scientific view. To the extent that apparently authoritative sources have been presented as contrary to the mainstream view, I've investigated them, and, frequently found that they have substantial conflicts of interests (for example, undeclared financial links to the tobacco industry). I've tried to present this information about these sources in a neutral fashion in Misplaced Pages, and have also raised it in other venues (less neutrally, since I admit to having a very negative view of tobacco lobbyists). | |||
| I've been advised by Guy and others that this is not the right interpretation of Misplaced Pages policy. So, for the moment, at least, I'm leaving ] articles alone or raising suggestions in the talk page, rather than editing directly. | |||
| Meanwhile, though, the issue has been used as a basis for personal attacks, including off-wiki attacks by users who are self-identified partisans , and on-Wiki attacks by users who have obvious conflicts of interest themselves (people recruited on 'AGW sceptic' sites, who have engaged in Wiki canvassing on those same sites). . | |||
| I'm happy to accept that my interpretation of policy has been wrong, but I'm dismayed that I'm still being attacked for conflicts of interest based primarily on the fact that I have a substantial public profile and can therefore be identified with particular positions, while SPA partisans are being cheered on for attacking me. | |||
| Anyway, apologies if all this is tangential to the topic at hand - perhaps it will provide some background on my involvement here. | |||
| ] (]) 22:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by IP_User:99.X=== | |||
| There are a number of unsupported and unrelated accusations here from Jzg and Quiggin, many of which do not involve me in any way, shape, or form. None of Quiggin's "supporting refs" are my edits. | |||
| I'm accused of posting "''aggressive''" messages on Jimbo's talk page. Let's first recognize that Jimbo is a user quite capable of regulating his own personal talk page - then let's note that Jimbo found my concerns had merit and were on topic related to a discussion of BLP abuse which was then taking place on his user page. | |||
| Jzg then makes an accusation that, "''It became apparent to me that IP99 has been carrying out a personal campaign against at least Lambert, e.g. - Special:Contributions/99.141.252.167 is almost all about Lambert or removing references to him from mainspace - something he failed to mention under his later IPs.''" This is patent nonsense. Not only did I directly link to that IP, ''and edits'', in the very last direct conversation I had with Jzg prior to his filing here, it is also clearly found creating the discussion from which this is derived - and can be found here where I make clear notice of my ip changing. I have been asking Jzg now for weeks to make clear his concerns and link supporting ref's. It would seem there is a reason he speaks in general terms about unspecified things and doesn't link to supporting ref's. Personally, I'd prefer not to be sold off by an auctioneer taking phantom bids from the chandelier while creating the impression of drama where none exists. | |||
| As to the application of jet fuel drama from the AGW jerry can, my only edits to AGW related articles has been in support of using the term "climategate" on Misplaced Pages. I supported community members efforts and introduced links showing neutral use of the term from Mother Jones, Factcheck.org, Newsweek, etc, I then introduced supporting references from peer-reviewed academic journals which studied or discussed the cultural and political phenom.. To the argument that Misplaced Pages had a prohibition against the term -gate, I introduced supporting ref's to demonstrate that neither community consensus, practice or policy prohibit the term. | |||
| My editorial position on the subject was limited strictly to support the recognition of the term noted above to describe the political and cultural moments that arose from the confluence of events started by the CRU email incident coming so close to the Copenhagen conference and the resulting environment encompassed by what is referred to as climategate. The one thing it I argued it would '''not''' be: a review of climate science. Participation is not de-facto partisanship. In no way do my positions or civil engagement in well supported, referenced and reasonable discussion give a foundation to any of the general, un-specified and un-supported AGW mud that Jzg and Quiggin have sought to throw on me here in this new venue. | |||
| I was unaware that Quiggin & Lambert were even users here until well into a discussion at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. My criticism of Lambert & Quiggin has been well supported and factual. COI harms the project whether done to harm ones enemies or to promote and bolster ones personal projects - as in these examples in which Quiggin has created ''entire'' articles, and supported them, for his close co-workers at "Crooked Timber". '''There is no grey area there either.''' One doesn't join a business and then create promotional advertisements for ones fellow website members here at Misplaced Pages. Rules regarding COI are important, fundamentally important.''' I have had *zero* content interaction with the users''' and no direct disagreements beyond impeaching Lambert's blog as a ] regarding the Reliable Source status of "The Times" of London and the associated talk. Unsupported "claims" to the contrary do nothing to change this. | |||
| Lambert & Quiggin continue even now to display poor and biased judgement with regards to the BLP subjects noted throughout these discussions. In Lambert's very last exchange here at Misplaced Pages he states that the Lott article has seen a number of "favorable" edits from ''"Lott supporters (e.g James Purtilo, who got Lott a position in the Maryland Computer Science Department"'' ] Lambert makes a number of serious charges there against a non-wikipedian he paints a puppet master. Think about this. An '''undergraduate student''' said, ''"Who knows why we decided to pick him up, but I imagine it has something to do with his friend Jim Purtilo"'' in a screed largely devoted to criticizing the BB coach. Which Tim Lambert then regurgitated and misquoted as unequivocal fact on Misplaced Pages as, ''"...strong Lott supporters (e.g James Purtilo, who got Lott a position in the Maryland Computer Science Department"'' - while notably labeling a civilian, university department chair, non-project participant as a Misplaced Pages sock-master. This is precisely the method, and the problem, when one spends ones days engaged in character assassination and ones nights writing your target's BLP's. It's the problem here. | |||
| Quiggin, also in his very last edit at Misplaced Pages, has also apparently decided to not even wait until the proceedings finish to completely break his assurances made directly to Jimbo, Jzg and the community not to edit the mainpage of his enemies on Misplaced Pages. Lindzen is named often, and prominently throughout these discussions, Jzg even listed that ''specific'' BLP in his original complaint against Quiggin. | |||
| I have not discussed nor suggested any action, I simply made my concerns known. This started from my defending ] as a reliable source and has been made into Drama by Jzg, unnecessarily. I've tackled a tough subject involving an editor with close associations here, but my conduct has been civil, reasonable and well supported. That shooting the messenger has progressed to this level is unsettling. ] (]) 17:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Just to underscore how egregious Quiggin's latest action is, contrast his statement here in this very section at ArbCom in which he ''back-peddles'' on his earlier 'promise' not to edit his enemies BLP's - "''So, for the moment, at least, I'm leaving WP:BLP articles alone or raising suggestions in the talk page, rather than editing directly.''" - '''with his very ''next'' edit''' on a BLP subject ''specifically'' named by Jzg in the complaint against Quiggin being discussed here. The contempt and disrespect found in such insincere promises and blatant violations is at the heart of the COI abuse.] (]) 19:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.'' | |||
| === Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/1/3) === | |||
| *Awaiting statements (and considering whether to recuse), but am I right in thinking that this would be a pretty simples matter not requiring arbitration but for the AGW connection and the attendant polarization? ] (]) 17:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :*I'm afraid that I must regretfully recuse. This is close enough to being a global warming proxy case that my recusal policy probably kicks in. As a general statement, I endorse MastCell's call for reasonable administrative initiatives, with the emphasis in this case being perhaps on "initiative". ] (]) 04:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *Awaiting statements, with the request that the statements focus on recent problems (i.e., since the editors in question first were advised of the concerns that have been expressed), if any, rather than primarily historical ones. ] (]) 21:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *Again, in this area, I'm not sure that anything short of draconian measures taken by the Arbitration Committee (or, possibly, the Arbitration Committee allowing administrators to take draconian measures in this area), such as restricting all the "usual suspects" from the topic area to eliminate the disruption, will work here. I think everyone should just back away and stop trying to push Doomsday here. (this is what I think in the general area of GW, not specifically this case, but the fact we're seeing more and more cases get brought here in this area concerns me) Leaning towards accepting, with the caveats above, but waiting for more statements/follow ups. ] (]) 18:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *Also looking for a bit more information, but as SirFozzie says, this seems to be a reoccurring issue and we may need to look at it again. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Accept'''; this isn't a new problem, nor is it likely to solve itself without — as SirFozzie says — draconian measures. The problem lies in carefully identifying what is the minimal set of such measures likely to bring the problem under control and that cannot be done without a case to examine the evidence. — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Russavia's request for arbitration enforcement concerning Biophys == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> '''at''' 06:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{admin|Sandstein}}, ''filing party'' (referring this case to the Committee as a procedural matter, see below) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Russavia}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Biophys}} | |||
| *allegedly {{userlinks|HanzoHattori}}, a banned user (not notified) | |||
| <!-- 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 | |||
| <!-- 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 --> | |||
| * | |||
| === Statement by Sandstein === | |||
| On March 15, Russavia made a voluminous request for arbitration enforcement against Biophys , alleging that Biophys has engaged in extensive edit warring and proxy editing for banned user HanzoHattori. Biophys denies this and claims that he is being harrassed. The AE request has received no uninvolved admin input for eleven days. While it ''may'' have at least some merit '']'', its scope makes it appear to be ill-suited to be processed under AE procedures. As proposed in the AE thread, and with the concurrence of another uninvolved admin, I am closing the AE thread and am procedurally referring the request to this Committee so that it may be properly disposed of instead of disappearing into the AE archives without comment. Please evaluate whether it should be made the subject of a case, dismissed or otherwise dealt with. (For clarity's sake, I am making this request solely as a procedural matter in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator processing an AE request.) <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Jehochman === | |||
| The evidence is notable in that it shows: | |||
| # Biophys has been editing tendentiously for a long time. They have been involved in many edit wars and show no sign of stopping. | |||
| # Biophys admits making edits on behalf of somebody who emailed them. This is not the first time something like that happened, and Biophys is fully on notice not to do that. | |||
| # Grey Fox-9589 asserts that HanzoHattori was a great editor, and there's nothing wrong with editing for them. (Biophys, with friends like that, you don't need enemies.) | |||
| Why edit for somebody else? If somebody emailed me proposed edits, I would tell them to make the edits themselves. Looking at the whole picture of disruptive editing, proxying for a banned user, past arbitration cases, past enforcement sanctions against Biophys, I think that an indefinite block is appropriate for violations of ], ] and ]. I am willing to apply the block myself as a policy enforcement action. For the moment I am going to wait for outcome of this discussion. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Biophys=== | |||
| This is my AE statement:. The case was brought by Russavia, immediately after coming from his editing restriction. As you probably know, I had nothing to do with his restriction and voted to lift it. I believe this AE request was only posted by Russavia but prepared by blocked {{User|Offliner}}. The request was created as a long list of short and clear statements with bullets: , exactly as EEML evidence by Offliner: . All statements by Russavia are made in a very different style, with large pieces of continuous and contentious text . Note that text of his AE request was prepared in advance and copy-pasted as a whole by Russavia to his user talk sub-page (User_talk:Russavia/AE). | |||
| Russavia (or possibly Offliner) brings two unrelated issues: | |||
| #I made reverts in several articles, although not as many as Russavia claims. All of them were fully explained and debated at the article talk pages (like here: ,,,,), and I made only one (sometimes two) reverts per day. I was also looking for the 3rd opinions of people like ], who are not "on my side" . | |||
| #I made a number of ''improvements'' in a different set of articles. These improvements are noncontroversial and ''did not cause anyone's objections or disruption''. Yes, I made some of the changes because someone else suggested to make them by email. The mailer did not tell me his name or any other personal information, but his country of origin is almost certainly Russia. He is not necessarily HanzoHattori, although he suggested to correct favorite articles by HanzoHattori. I checked the sources and can answer any specific questions about the improvements ''I'' made. That was fully consistent with our policies, in particular ]. There was no disruption involved. Some of these articles were later corrected by users who watch my edits, but I fully agree with their changes. | |||
| ::Re to Jehochman about this. "Why edit for somebody else?" Right. I did not. I edited on behalf of this project and not "on behalf of somebody who emailed me". But you should keep in mind that "editing for someone else" is allowed in this project because we have ] who work "for somebody else" simply by definition. | |||
| To summarize, there is little here beyond a few reverts by me and several other users. I am ready to work together with any of the users involved, as should be clear from the "Proposed conflict resolution" in my AE statement (although I can also avoid doing anything with them as suggested by SirFozzie). | |||
| Re to YMB29. At the talk page of ] I said that "I do not care if '''you''' are doing this yourself or someone asked you" and that no one (meaning '''you''' or whoever else) should be punished for canvassing. I did not ask anyone to vote during last six months at least. I have no idea who was "Defender of the Torch". I did not ask him about anything. I only once commented during AfD discussion of an article he created. If he decided to follow my edits later, that's his business. | |||
| *Re to SirFozzie. ''"if all sides just pretended the other side did not exist..."'' Great advice. Yes, I will follow it exactly, starting right now. If the case is taken, I am going to post at the Evidence page: "No diffs about other users involved in this case will be provided except diffs explaining my own actions, in response to comments by others". | |||
| *Re to Shell. No judgement about others per advice by SirFozzie, but I actively debated at the article talk pages ,,,,, asked advice from experienced editors on the "opposite side" , and restricted myself to only one (at most two) reverts per day. Therefore, ''I have lost all content disputes'' , , , , . I also did not file any official complaints at the WP noticeboards, just as I am not going to provide any evidence against other users (except something directly related to myself) if this case is taken. Is not this enough? ] (]) 15:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Grey Fox-9589 === | |||
| I'll reply to ] since he's quoted me. I've said that ] was a good editor (great is over the top) and I didn't see anything wrong with watching the articles he has created. This does not mean I believe HanzoHattori isn't supposed to be banned. I was not aware ] was still in contact with HanzoHattori and that he's made editing suggestions. This was probably a wrong action by Biophys. Personally I think that Biophys wasn't aware of wrongdoing, because otherwise he would not have openly admitted making several edits on behalf of HanzoHattori's suggestions (has he? now I'm not sure). I understand that Biophys can be sanctioned over this, but I believe an indefinite ban is far too strict. | |||
| What I am concerned about is the battlefield mentality of the users requesting for arbitration. As his block log shows Russavia was blocked before for ] of Biophys. Russavia has been closely watching edits by Biophys and waited for a misstep by Biophys just to get him sanctioned. I'm certain of this because Russavia has never been much involved with the articles HanzoHattori created. Right after Russavia's sanctions were lifted he filed this arbitration request. I don't believe we should reward this type of behaviour. ] (]) 14:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by YMB29=== | |||
| I have encountered other users on wiki who I don't agree with, but the difference with Biophys is that he ignores discussion and tries to sneak in his edits anyway he can. | |||
| I am not going to repost everything I wrote in AE and AN3 before, but the main thing is that Biophys has continued to use off-wiki coordination to help him edit war, after the EEML case. | |||
| ] never edited the ] article before coming twice to revert to Biophys' version. <br> | |||
| Later Biophys more or less admitted to asking him: ''Yes, that's my personal opinion: we should encourage communication in this project, no matter how people do it (over the phone, by email or using body language). No one should be punished for "canvassing".'' <br> | |||
| -] (]) 20:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Russavia=== | |||
| In response to the request by KnightsLago below, I will defer to the summary provided at ]. As to the provision of diffs, this has already been done at ]. To get this within the limits of this page, take Jehochman's statement, and add to it the diffs from the AE page, and there is my statement at this stage. Anything else will have to wait (and likely go unanswered) as I have too much on my plate in real world over the coming days. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.'' | |||
| === Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/0/3) === | |||
| *Awaiting statements, and maybe a flash of brilliant insight. ] (]) 07:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *Awaiting Russavia's statement; I would specifically like to see the AE request summed up within the words limits on this page, ''with'' differences of alleged inappropriate conduct. ] (]) 20:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *Ugh. I was thinking about saying something about how the area would be so much cleaner and happier, if all sides just pretended the other side did not exist... but I'm not sure that this is actually possible. Thinking of possible ways to resolve this.. another Arbitration case seems likely, but I don't know if it will actually resolve the issue, short of taking very draconian measures. ] (]) 18:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Accept''' I ] of several editors involved back in June of 09 and it doesn't seem like improvement has been made. If the admins at AE think this is too complex, then I think we need to open a case, examine the behavior of everyone involved and decide what specific sanctions will move us toward deescalating the dispute in EE areas. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Accept''' Per Shell.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 21:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Accept'''; this is still a battleground, and little to no improvement is to be seen in the past months. — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:47, 31 March 2010 (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.