Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:30, 13 August 2011 view sourceMagog the Ogre (talk | contribs)Administrators100,716 edits Statement by Magog the Ogre: +← 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>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}} <noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:ARC|a guide on talk page archiving|H:ARC}}
{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{-}}
= <includeonly>]</includeonly> =
</noinclude>
<br clear="all"/>
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}} <includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for arbitration}}}}</noinclude>
{{NOINDEX}}

{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}}
== Senkaku Islands ==
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 09:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
*{{admin|Qwyrxian}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|Tenmei}}
*{{userlinks|Bobthefish2}}
*{{userlinks|STSC}}
*{{userlinks|Lvhis}}
*{{userlinks|Oda Mari}}
*{{userlinks|Phoenix7777}}
*{{userlinks|John Smith's}}
*{{userlinks|Benlisquare}}
*{{admin|Penwhale}}
*{{admin|Feezo}}
*{{admin|Magog the Ogre}}
<!-- 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 -->
*See below in Statement by Qwyrxian

=== Statement by Qwyrxian ===
] and ] have been the subject of dispute as far back as 2003 (See ]). ] has been protected 5 times, including twice in the past year, and is currently fully protected. ] has been protected 5 times since its creation in October 2010, and is currently fully protected. The issues being debated range from individual word and grammatical choices, to identifying and interpreting RS's, to overall organization. One of the most persistent arguments revolves around the article title itself. The page has been moved unilaterally several times (see ), but was moved back each time. Various steps of dispute resolution have been taken; none have succeeding in ending the disputes. Specifically:

*July 2007—]: Request to move to "Pinnacle Islands".
*September 2010—]: Request to move to "Pinnacle Islands".
*November 2010—]: RfC on the article title.
*May – July 2011—]: MedCom mediation.

Also, issues relating to these pages have been raised on noticeboards and Wikitalk pages, including ''']''' (]), ''']''' (]), ''']''' (], ], ]), ''']''' (4 discussions, see ), and possibly others.

The aforementioned Mediation failed. It closed after numerous editors were unable to behave and stay on topic; eventually, several editors abandoned mediation and it closed without any useful result. These behavioral problems have been rampant on the article talk pages and related user talk pages since 2010. Some editors have held that no matter what consensus says, . Others have used . Others . One editor was taken to WQA for xyr behaviors on these pages (]); another was the subject of an RFC/U (]). While in the past I had hoped to use the DR process to solve our problems, I have come to believe that until the behavioral problems are corrected, we will be unable to make constructive progress on the article content.

Finally, I would like to state that I am aware of the fact that ArbCom does not rule on content; however, if the committee accepts this case, and has any suggestions about how to settle the naming issue such as a binding RfC, a site-wide vote as happened for ], etc., input would be appreciated. The name has been one of the sticking points that keeps us from progressing on to actual article improvement, and so a lasting solution is highly desirable.

=== Statement by Ajl772 ===
Technically speaking, I should have been notified as well, since I was involved (albeit briefly) in attempting to get to some sort of dispute resolution running (specifically by filing a MedCom request). However I withdrew from that for various reasons, which I will list at a later time, as well as providing a statement, which will be included in this section (but for now, I need to sleep). &ndash; ]<sup><b>]</b></sup> 10:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by Magog the Ogre ===
Pardon me if I get any of this wrong... never filed an RFAr request before. Hopefully I don't miss anything important.

I entered the dispute through ], a board which at times I frequent as a deciding admin. Since then, ] has been subject to numerous locks , and ] has been on indefinite protection . The page has gone through failed RFCs, a mediation, and requests at ANI to help, not to mention numerous pleas on my talk page surrounding the issue (],],],],],],],],],],],],]).

At a few times, I may not have given the issue the proper consideration it was due (cf. ], where I was a bit unnecessarily rude about it as well). Nevertheless, I have done what's in my power to try to further the resolution in a way amenable to all parties. Recently, I took the unorthodox step of placing ] on mandatory ] watch - any party breaking BRD would be subject to a block. This was an unusual step, granted, but it was a last ditch effort on my part to come up with a solution short of indefinite full-protection and/or Arbcom intervention (oh, and it did have community support!).

Nevertheless, it has not worked. Since, it has been quite clear to me that:
* All attempts at dispute resolution will continue to fail, as parties have and will continue to talk right past each other.
* None of the players in the dispute has been acting poorly in an overt enough fashion that the community would support bans/blocks for any one deed, or even for behavior as a whole without an Arbcom ruling.
* Certain figures have been acting in ways that has inflamed rather than alleviated the dispute.
* The situation would be helped greatly and possibly solved altogether with the censure of non-helpful parties in a way which Arbcom can accomplish, but which the community at large cannot. ''"Cast out the scorner, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease."''

On the case of figures acting poorly: in the past, I have called out specifically two editors:
* ] for his unnecessarily loquaciousness, which I believe has often been used (unintentionally) to cover up a case of ]. I also believe Tenmei exhibits a severe case of ], and possibly a lack of necessary ] (it is hurtful, and it pains me to say, but I have no other explanation).
* I have also called out ] for what I believe to be a desire to do nothing ''but'' troll and cause controversy. At every step of the way, his actions have seemed tailored to cause more strife, not less. Examples can be provided should Arbcom accept this case.
* It is important to note that these are not the only editors I have seen problems from; these are simply the two I have dealt with the most, and most recently.

Finally, I would like to echo Qwyrxian's statement that Arbcom does not, and should not, rule directly on content (this is kind of important, in light of a careless comment I made which was copied and mailed to the Arbcom list, a comment which I was completely incorrect in making). However, some rules/guidelines for conduct and censure of the bad apples from Arbcom would be quite helpful. ] (]) 12:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by {Party 4} ===

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''

=== 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 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 arbitration


Shortcuts

About this page

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

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

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

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


File an arbitration request


Guidance on participation and word limits

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

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

General guidance

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