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 16:45, 4 November 2014 view sourceRobert McClenon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers197,110 edits →Statement by {other user}: RFC/U should go away← 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 editors42,349 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>{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}</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>
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
{{NOINDEX}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}}

<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
<!-- PLEASE PLACE NEW CASE REQUESTS BELOW THIS LINE -->
== Ahmed Hassan Imran ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 17:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|BengaliHindu}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|MehulWB}}
*{{admin|Berean Hunter}}
*{{admin|Dennis Brown}}
*{{admin|Salvio giuliano}}
*{{admin|Dougweller}}
*{{userlinks|Pharaoh of the Wizards}}
*{{userlinks|Serialjoepsycho}}
*{{userlinks|Hell in a Bucket}}
*{{userlinks|Bladesmulti}}
*{{userlinks|AmritasyaPutra}}

<!-- The editor filing the case will automatically 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. -->
*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AMehulWB&diff=632163282&oldid=631177434
*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ABerean_Hunter&diff=632163561&oldid=631692224
*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ADennis_Brown&diff=632163887&oldid=632163291
*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ASalvio_giuliano&diff=632164022&oldid=632087787
*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ADougweller&diff=632164117&oldid=632159748
*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3APharaoh_of_the_Wizards&diff=632164206&oldid=632088603
*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ASerialjoepsycho&diff=632164292&oldid=631822415
*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AHell_in_a_Bucket&diff=632164371&oldid=632111826
*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ABladesmulti&diff=632164477&oldid=632100043
*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AAmritasyaPutra&diff=632164615&oldid=631929745

;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 -->
*https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:BengaliHindu/Archive_28#Allegations_not_proven
*https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive207#Ahmed_Hassan_Imran
*
*

=== Statement by BengaliHindu ===
I was expanding ] with proper inline citations from reliable sources when ] started blanking out sections of the article (see , , , , , , ) citing that I'm making allegations against ] whereas I had only been adding whatever allegations had been made against him as published in reliable sources. ] identified (see here ) themselves as readers of Kalom newspaper, edited by ], and indirectly threatened to move against me for expanding the article which they think constitute a cyber crime under Indian law. I tried to explain my position to ] in ], but the situation reached an impasse, so I reported in BLP noticeboard (see here ). I stopped editing because of ]'s continuous blanking out of the article. ], ], ] made edits in the article after that and I was accused of sockpuppetry. In the SPI case {{admin|Berean Hunter}} adjudicated me of sockpuppetry based on behaviourial pattern, that too after almost one month and for 72 hours. I have never had any blocks in my entire edit history. I know I didn't do it. I request you to review this case and remove my block log. ] (]) 17:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by MehulWB ===
I have already added my comments on different Misplaced Pages sections like BLPN, Noticeboards etc. so I am not sure what exactly I need to add here but I didn't blank out the page. I put proper explanations for my edits thru discussions but I was wrongly reported to the administrators. I hope everything is okay at the end.--] (]) 18:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Berean Hunter ===
=== Statement by Dennis Brown ===
Link of my involvement:

At the ANI discussion linked above, someone asked for review of Berean Hunter's actions. At SPI, BH blocked one account as master, and another as puppet after an investigation. Being experienced at SPI procedure and sockpuppet investigation, I reviewed by looking at the histories of all relevant parties, and provided that information at ANI. In my opinion, the conclusions and actions of Berean Hunter were reasonable, based on facts, appeared to have been in good faith, and was executed within community norms. As I stated there, there is no 100% guarantee of accuracy when investigating sockpupppets, but many (if not most) admin would have come to the exact same conclusion, that sockpuppetry had taken place. That is the sum total of my participation in these events. ] - ] 18:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@{{u|Serialjoepsycho}}: There is no requirement to notify a user that an SPI case has been opened in their name. In fact, notification is typically discouraged. Unlike ANI, SPI is a formal administrative board, and actions are not based upon voting or consensus, although like all admin actions, they are subject to review. ] - ] 19:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Dougweller ===
Not sure why I've been named as a party. It would have been nice to have been given a reason. ] (]) 19:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Pharaoh of the Wizards ===
=== Statement by Serialjoepsycho ===
I can only speak from the ANI that was opened that unblock BengaliHindu. BengaliHindu was not notified of the SPI on his talkpage. I have no way of knowing if they was aware of that SPI and it doesn't seem they were. In the ANI opened Berean Hunter focuses in on BH vandalism report saying that it wasn't vandalism but obvious BLP issue the user was trying to forward. This doesn't actually seem all to obvious from any of the discussion taking place between BH and MehulWB before the time of the report. At some point later BH had taken it to BLPN. It strange to think that BH would be taking measures in good faith and bad faith at the same time. BH lacks any prior history of it. This also involved an article of a BLP who made major headlines. Those headlines could have brought the other users over. Nirmalya1234 makes protected edit request that suggests they are a new user. Abhijit4law made different changes to the article. Banning an individual for sock puppetry on such weak evidence a month after the incident in question and without reviewing other relevant details is not good precedent. The is also the matter of the two others that remain blocked. As far as it goes with BengaliHindu his ban is already over but there is that single blemish on his block log. I don't expect in the future an Admin to look thru the details of that block but I do expect that if they look at the block log it will poison the well.] (]) 18:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|Dennis Brown}} It doesn't seem they are required but it does seem they are encouraged. On the SPI page there is a Post box in the collapsed box titled "How to open an investigation:". When you put a name there and click submit it takes you to a page to file your report with all kinds of instruction and advice. There is a section titled General comments. In that section its says You may wish to notify the accused with subst:uw-socksuspect|casename (in brackets).] (]) 20:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Hell in a Bucket ===
my involvement pertains to explaining SPI processes and agreeing in principle that the block was primarily behavioral based and not screamingly obvious. I suggested that the short term block was an extension of good faith on the behalf of the blocking administrator, other then that I have no opinion. I think it's fairly obvious this case should be declined with alacrity. ] (]) 00:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Bladesmulti ===
=== Statement by AmritasyaPutra ===
I agree with Abecedare that a note should be added to BangaliHindu's block log along the lines "the suspicion of sock-puppetry may have been mistaken". --]<sup>]</sup> 01:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by (completely uninvolved) Abecedare===
I believe:
* ]'s block of ] was in good-faith and justifiable by policy,
* Nonetheless, reading the SPI and ANI discussion, it appears possible (probable even) that BengaliHindu did not in fact use sock-accounts
* Arbitration cannot resolve this issue and the case should (and, surely will) be rejected.

So how should we handle a case where correct procedure was followed but ''may'' have resulted in an undeserved block (and permanent marking of the long term editor's block record)? There are no universal answer, but my suggestion for this particular case would be that, ''if Berean and BangaliHindu concur'', a note be added the latter's block log along the lines "the suspicion of sock-puppetry may have been mistaken" (Technically I believe this would involve blocking BengaliHindu again for say 1 second).

I wouldn't recommend this as a standard operating procedure, since that would result in endless re-litigation of past blocks. But we should be willing to make ] in individual instances, out of common courtesy. ] (]) 20:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by {Non-party} ===
<!-- Other editors are free to make relevant comment on this request as necessary.
Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Please copy this section for the next person. -->

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

=== Ahmed Hassan Imran: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/4/1/0> ===
{{anchor|1=Ahmed Hassan Imran: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small>

* '''Decline''' As stated by {{admin|Dennis Brown}}, the actions by {{admin|Berean Hunter}} do not appear even close to violating the relevant policies, and as such do not merit arbitration. ''']<font color="darkgreen">]</font>''' 18:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' Per the above. ] (]) 19:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
{{anchor|unsuitablity_for_admin_role}}
*'''Recuse'''. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 19:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Decline''', I do not see a matter that requires arbitration here. Abuse of administrative tools is certainly within the ArbCom's purview, but I don't see credible cause to believe the actions undertaken were abusive or inappropriate. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' per above. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 08:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

== {{anchor|Dangerous Panda}} DangerousPanda ==
'''Initiated by ''' <small>]</small> '''at''' 15:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|NE Ent}}, ''filing party''
*{{admin|DangerousPanda}}
*{{userlinks|Msnicki}}
*{{admin|Jehochman}}
*{{admin|Nyttend}}
*{{userlinks|Lecen}}
*{{admin|Jimbo Wales}}
*{{userlinks|MrX}}
<!-- The editor filing the case will automatically be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried

Founder of Misplaced Pages told him his behavior was inappropriate and "ground for immediate desysopping."

Previous rfar, declined

See also ACE2013 election comments (collated in deleted Rfcu).

Recent complaint regarding AE action on WT:AC

RFCU ], deleted on procedural grounds (see discussion below)




=== Statement by NE Ent ===
:#]
:#] "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and '''civilly''' to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." (emphasis mine)
I assert DangerousPanda has chronically failed to maintain his conduct in accordance with the expected Misplaced Pages standards. Being human, it's understandable that admins will ''occasionally'' misstep and, per ],
beyond a brief user talk page note suggesting their behavior was suboptimal, ANI threads and arbcom cases are not appropriate.
However, when the behavior is repeated over and over, and prior interventions have failed to be efficacious,
action needs to be taken.
The committee has repeatedly made it clear that arbcom cases about long term behavior should not be filed without
community processes, especially Rfcu's, being followed.
As documented above, I initiated such an Rfcu, and found an editor, Msnicki, who was willing to be the second certifier; unfortunately it was deleted in good faith by Jehochman based on wording that suggests Rfcu's may only be certified based on a ''single incident'', not a long term pattern of behavior.
After discussion with Jehochman , I requested review ]; Nyttend closed the discussion on the grounds Jehochman's reading is correct .
Per ''not perfect'' such an Rfcu is unlikely to gain a consensus since it's about a single incident.

This leads to an absurd, ] like situation that:
* The committee is unlikely take a case about long term behavior without an Rfcu.
* An rfcu about long term behavior will be deleted because it's about long term behavior.


This is formulated as a "case request" because that's the way a user gets the whole committee's attention.
What it really is '''a request for help:''' Tell me, tell us, what to do. Take a case on DP, or motion the Rfcu undeleted, or decline, but if you decline please tell us ''what to do'' about long term substandard behavior that never ''quite'' rises to the slam-bang desysop case, but is clearly unacceptable per the words set forth at ].
:@Salvio, does ''one of the certifiers cited a very old case is a better justification'' refer to myself or Msnicki? <small>]</small> 10:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Msnicki ===

My experience was as a reporter in a case that (I learned later) began when DP blocked ] without proper warning as required by ] over some between Barney and ] at ] where Bearcat was the nom and losing (and would lose) the debate. Bearcat (who's an admin) complained at ANI and 29 minutes later, without warning and without discussion for ''the duration of the AFD (96 hours)''. After Barney called DP , DP allowed and even defended Bearcat as Bearcat baited Barney on Barney's own talk page even while Barney was blocked, effectively colluding to edge Barney closer to and eventually out the door in violation of ].

After DP indefinitely blocked Barney even from his own talk page, leaving him with only ], which starts by asking that the user wait 6 months, to reconsider. I thought there could be an appearance that DP was becoming emotionally involved and that he should seek another opinion from another admin. I was more appalled by Bearcat's behavior. but without ever discussing the substance of my remarks in a pattern that continues to this day. He has never been willing to discuss the substance of my complaint, which is that he showed poor judgment, made poor choices and got a poor outcome. I think he could get better outcomes simply by being willing to discuss past choices to see how they could have been made better, e.g., by being more receptive to others' concerns and suggestions but I've never been able to get past the tedious pattern of disrespect. Meanwhile, he's still never been willing to hand Barney off to another admin to see if there's a way to get this once productive editor back here and producing.

In the last round on DP's talk page, per Jehochman's suggestion that talk page discussion was a better vehicle, I tried again to explain my concerns , . DP interspersed his replies into the middle of my comment, mostly just denying everything. When I asked he not intersperse like that, , he removed my request, then closed the whole discussion, , claiming I'm obviously insincere.

I don't think he should be an admin because he shows no willingness to conform to our standards of civility yet expects to block others for the same behavior, shows poor judgment, makes poor choices and gets poor outcomes, then refuses to ] or consider others' input, the very input that might help him make better choices and get better outcomes. We lost a formerly productive contributor over something that started because an admin was losing an AfD and had a thin skin. Most admins should have been able to resolve this and get a better outcome. If DP were to give the Barney case up to another admin today, there's still some chance of a better outcome. ] (]) 17:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Jehochman (Dangerous Panda)===

I've simplified my original remarks. There is no need to repeat what I've already said elsewhere, such as on or in the referenced . ] <sup>]</sup> 16:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

: "About NE Ent choice of material, I agree that the opinion contained in the various arbguides linked to was unnecessary, but, again, removal would have sufficed." - There is no process for an administrator to edit a live RFCU. That would be extremely contentious, and after a dozen or more people had commented, editing the presentation would create chaos and a lot of work to notify everybody and ask them to reconsider their opinions in light of the revised presentation. The inclusion of prejudicial material ]. Once that happened, the most efficient way to correct things was to restart with a proper statement and proper certification.

: I was the unlucky one who decided to look at this RFCU with the intention of moving it from the "candidate" list to the "certified" list. There were two signers. Superficially it looked good, but upon closer inspection I was taken aback by the inclusion of irrelevant and dubious material (ArbCom guide statements, hearsay taken out of context), and that the certifiers were referring to incidents in 2014 (good enough) and 2012 (stale, and not the same). I read ] at ] and decided that the only ethical option was to delete the page. When we are talking about people, the rules need to be applied as written. I communicated with the filers, offering to (1) userify their content, and (2) explain what was wrong and how to fix it on a second try.

: The goal of dispute resolution is to convince the party in the wrong to correct themselves. This can take patience. Dispute resolution is not merely a checklist of prerequisites to fulfill while playing a game of ban-the-other-editors or desysop-the-evil-administrator. For that reason ArbCom should not require a futile RFCU when a user has already received lots of feedback and doesn't seem to be listening, per MrX. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC) and 16:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

: {{ping|NE Ent}} - Here's how to get an RFCU about a long term pattern of administrator incivility. (1) Pick a recent incident of incivility. (2) Have at least two users discuss that same incident with the admin. (3) If the response isn't good, file an RFCU about that incident. (4) In the RFCU, include a section with evidence showing that the crystalizing incident isn't unique; it's part of a long term pattern. List all the prior incidents with diffs. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

{{ping|Carcharoth}}, one way to make RFCU more user friendly would be to require an admin to review and approve the certification ''before'' anybody starts making comments. That way any deficiencies could be corrected before it goes live. It's just silly to let it run for 48 hours and for editors to spend their time commenting, many of the comments saying things like "this RFCU is poorly formed". That's just a waste of time caused by a backwards process. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Nyttend ===
NE Ent is completely off base in his statement about the catch-22. As he was repeatedly told, both by others (perhaps by Jehochman?) and by me, the RFCU was deleted because it had not been properly certified: we always delete RFCUs when we do not have certifiers for '''the same dispute'''. I won't publish a guess of his reasons, but NE Ent is obsessing (along with others, if I remember rightly from the discussion I closed) about that one RFCU. As my closing statement said, this deletion was procedural, and it does not affect the possibility of creating a new RFCU on the same user about the same issue or about a different issue: just be sure to obtain proper certification next time. ] (]) 15:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I believe that arbitration requests about a single user generally take the name of the user; otherwise we could have lots of cases all called "unsuitability for admin role". I am thoroughly unfamiliar with all other aspects of this case, so I can have no reasonable comments on them. ] (]) 15:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree with Dennis Brown: we definitely need to follow procedure in dispute-resolution situations, unless it's an emergency, or unless the parties agree to ignore procedure for whatever reason. Editors ought not be exposed to problematic situations just because some people decided to ignore the rules without very good reason; the dispute-resolution rules just almost never prevent you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages. And I also agree with Jehochman when he says that we mustn't accept as a single dispute something concocted out of incidents that occurred several years apart: RFCU policy clearly states that RFCUs must focus on a '''single incident'''. ] (]) 00:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Lecen ===
=== Statement by Jimbo Wales ===

I wrote an opinion/admonishment about a particular incident of hostility towards another user more than two years ago. While I fully stand by the remarks I made then, I think that the passage of time means that more recent behavior is significantly more relevant. Speaking about general principles rather than the specifics of this case, I think that a generous and kind spirit should encourage us to both firmly reject such behavior, but also to warmly welcome change over time. I have no idea what the application of this would be in this case, because I have not reviewed the recent complaints and so have no comment about them.--] (]) 16:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by MrX ===
I will post a more thorough statement soon, but I want to go on record as recommending that Arbcom accept this case. There is no strict requirement in policy or practice for completing an RFC/U, especially where a admin conduct, judgement and use of tools is concerned. Numerous attempts have been made over the past four years, at ANI, talk pages, an aborted RFC/U, and a previous RFAR, to address chronic concerns about DangerousPanda's conduct in his roles as an admin. Outside of Arbcom, the community is ill-equipped to settle admin conduct issues, and is powerless to remove admin privileges. Further distrust, discord, and wasted effort will result if Arbcom declines to accept this case.- ]] 15:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

===Statement by peripherally involved Dennis Brown ===
The RFC/U was deleted because it wasn't properly certified. This has been verified by a number of people. Even so, the opening diff showing that Ent had tried to work out his problems with DP was '''two year old'''. The evidence also had tons of statements from "Arb reviews" from when DP ran for Arb, which were prejudicial and irrelevant as those individuals were speaking as to DP's fitness for Arb, not admin, thus they were completely out of place. Goals had to be changed, etc. In short, it was an abortion of an RFC/U. This is why so many of us tried to convince NE Ent to take it to DP's talk page ''first'', something that MrX actually did (and did so in a proper, respectful and appropriate way). Once there, I think DP did come up short in answering questions, being more defensive than engaging, but that is just one step in the dispute resolution process. That would form the basis for a fresh and valid RFC/U, assuming you can get two people to certify it. Are there legitimate gripes or concerns? From what I see, yes, but there is a reason we have processes in place to deal with them, they just haven't been used properly. Getting Arb involved this early in the process is unnecessary. <s>And yes, please change the name of this case.</s> ] - ] 16:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

*To me, it's a matter of procedure. It isn't about being bureaucratic, it is about maintaining reasonable order and fairness to all parties. I'm not judging the merits of any complaint, but we do have processes designed to deal with these grievances and these processes should be followed unless there is good cause, ie: an emergency. He had 48 hours to get certified, and infinite time to prepare. It was delete 60 hours later from lack of certification. It was already handled by the community. The same for all the improper material he was injecting, making it look as if a dozen people opined about DP's fitness as admin when they in fact were not saying any such thing. It was being handled by the community, including by myself and Bbb23, who commented on this (and gathered majority support of the participants). So far, the community has handled it, and Ent or anyone else can refile a proper RFC/U at any time. Failure to get certification at RFC/U or find enough editors to agree with you that there is abuse is not the same thing as the community being unable to handle the situation. On the contrary, the tone of the discussion on the various pages and the willingness of many admin to assist in userfying the old RFC/U, while unbiasedly encouraging dialog clearly shows the community can handle the situation, and continues to. We are not yet at an impasse, even if some are obviously impatient and single minded. ] - ] 23:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Bbb23===
I agree with {{U|Dennis Brown}} and others that the RfC/U was not properly certified. I said as much at the time. However, it's not because one can't raise long-term conduct in an RfC/U or because the two certifiers have to agree about everything. Rather, it's because there was no attempt to resolve the dispute before initiating the RfC/U and because too much of it was old. It was a scattershot, poorly framed, poorly done RfC/U, and I was surprised that {{U|NE Ent}} would initiate it. Thus, this request should be declined because it's not ripe for the Committee. Another reason - and perhaps a threshold reason - why it should be declined is NE Ent concedes it's not a real request. He just wants advice. The RfC/U and subsequent events were a time sink. This is yet another time sink. Obviously, the arbitrators are free to provide advice if they wish, but this is not a constructive use of the arbitration process.--] (]) 17:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Protonk===

I have no comment on the underlying issues, but the committee or the community need to come up with a process for dealing with behavioral issues that isn't a complete joke. I don't think RFC/U forbids raising long term conduct issues, but RFC/U has not served as a useful check on behavior in a long time. Rather, it provides us with a convenient mechanism to deflect criticism of vested contributors and admins by saying "hey, the RFC/U for so and so is a red link" when refusing to act on thorny conduct issues on noticeboards--the implication being that to actually get some action an editor has build a case against an editor, have that certified then take it before the community where the same sclerotic practices that prevent us from dealing with admins/vested contributors with conduct problems work themselves out via dueling "summaries of conflicts". To top it all off, that process is merely advisory. It's a tremendous, staggering waste of time and I'm embarrassed for us whenever we point users to that process in lieu of actually dealing with an issue on a noticeboard.

Ripe or not, one of the reasons NE Ent is here is that community process has failed, systemically. ] (]) 18:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Bearcat===

I'm not involved in this particular dispute, and cannot address the substance of the allegations that are actually being made. However, because Msnicki brought my name into it in her statement, I want to correct the record about what she said about me and the matter in which DangerousPanda and I actually interacted.

I did not "lose" the AFD debate in question because I was in any way wrong about what Misplaced Pages's basic inclusion rules are — it ultimately landed as a keep because editors who had access to source repositories that I don't have, and were therefore able to locate more appropriate reliable sourcing than I could have done, put in the effort to ''improve'' the article to a keepable ]-passing standard ''while'' the debate was underway. I did not in any way misrepresent the fact that the subject's basic claim of notability did not satisfy Misplaced Pages's inclusion rules in its original form — the article was substantively improved ''after'' I initiated the discussion. And I never had any objection to that kind of improvement, either — I said ''more'' than once in the discussion that while the claim of notability didn't pass ] by itself, the article ''could'' be kept if it were improved enough to get the topic over ] instead. So the fact that the article was kept does not represent a "failure" or any "malfeasance" on my part — it represents the process working exactly the way it's supposed to: people who believed that the topic should be considered notable, and had access to the necessary resources to properly substantiate that notability, actually put in the work to salvage the article. And that's ''always'' a possible, and very welcome, outcome to an AFD discussion. It's not a matter of "winners" or "losers" — the article ''became'' more keepable than it was in its initial iteration, and I consider that a "win" for ''everybody''.

And furthermore, I did not approach ANI asking for any specific action to be taken — I was being personally attacked, and asked for a neutral administrator to review the situation and make their ''own'' decisions about who was in the wrong and how to handle it, and would have ''accepted'' it if the other administrator had determined that I was at fault. And while continuing to respond to continued personal attacks may indeed suggest that I'm a bit more thin-skinned than I should be sometimes, it's not inappropriate "malfeasance", or against any Misplaced Pages policy, to do so — the ''worst'' that can be said about it is that it maybe isn't the most productive use of my own editing time, and I should have just let it roll off my back. But that's something for me to deal with on my own time in my own process of dealing with my own normal human imperfections, not a matter for Misplaced Pages to address punitively. And at any rate, if another editor is more outraged by a victim of uncivil ] ''responding'' to them than they are by the personal attacks themselves, then that says far more about them than it does about me.

All of that said, I'm not the subject of this discussion — Panda's handling of the matter that I was involved in isn't even the substance of the complaint — so it's not appropriate to badmouth me in the process of addressing the matter that's actually under discussion. And that's all I'm going to say here. ] (]) 18:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Floq ===
I'd suggest one of 2 things:
*Place this request on hold, and by motion temporarily desysop DP until he substantially engages with Mr.X (and any others with serious concerns) on his talk page. Once that happens, you can decide whether or not the result of the discussion is satisfactory, and either resysop or let the desysop stand.
*Accept as an ArbCom case now; RFCU in its current state is perfectly suited for wikilawyering a dispute until it goes away.
If you accept a case, a remedy at the end suggesting the community have an RFC on how to fix RFCU to make it marginally useful would be appropriate, though realistically unlikely to achieve anything. Finally, this is not really the place, but while I'm here: I apologize to everyone I've ever suggested start an RFCU on someone, whether when I was an Arb or a civilian. I should have know better, and been more helpful. RFCU is broken. --] (]) 15:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

===Statement by Alanscottwalker===
My view is not that RfCU is "broken", but it is a very ''delicate'' procedure, requiring massive restraint and good faith from all - and therefore can only be (and is) useful rarely. Thus, treating it as a 'check-off' in process has been unsuitable. ] (]) 17:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by uninvolved Unscintillating ===
I recall no previous or subsequent contact with this editor other than the contact I will report here; although in the talk page diff below the editor seems to know of me.

In block log, DP confirms a consensus of incivility but overturns another admin's block.&nbsp; diff confirms the viewpoint that incivility has no standing without a violation of WP:NPA.

After the unblock, I asked on DP's talk page focusing on incivility enabling, and if he/she was willing to revert the unblock.&nbsp; I also pointed him/her to .&nbsp; In one of the responses, note the use of caps and the use of vulgarity in the same sentence as the word "incivility".

Is this the kind of behavior that another RFC/U can address?&nbsp; I can't say.&nbsp; My problem is the community's problem which is an admin who claims to be a supporter of our civility policy but has used the tools as an incivility enabler.&nbsp; ] (]) 23:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Rschen7754 ===
It is true that DangerousPanda has, at times, acted inappropriately for an administrator. It is also true that concerns were raised about halfway through 2013. Finally, it is true that at times DangerousPanda has professed a willingness to change his behavior.

Probably what should be considered in whether to accept or decline this request is whether others have made enough good-faith attempts have been made to address the issues, and whether DangerousPanda has made enough good-faith attempts to address these issues. --''']]]''' 00:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by John Cline ===
I do not agree with Floquenbeam's assertion that RFC/U is broken. I agree with Salvio that an RFC/U must allow for certification of requests to examine long term issues of a user's conduct. I disagree with NE Ent's interpretation of comments made regarding the deleted RFC/U. His conclusion that ''"Rfcu's may only be certified based on a single incident, not a long term pattern of behavior"'' was never suggested, and the good faith error which heard it that way belongs to him alone.

What was actually said, on more than one occasion, was that he and Msnicki were clearly pursuing separate agendas, and that nothing resembling a semblance of "same purpose" was ever hinted to exist. I am confident that had NE Ent and Msnicki, both, focused on long term behavioral patterns, with each one expressing concerns that encompassed the same long term expanse, they could have satisfied the "sameness" requirement, and certified the RFC/U.

I therefore endorsed Jehochman's deletion of the RFC/U, and his subsequent efforts to facilitate the dispute resolution. I believe Dangerous Panda would embrace constructive suggestions and not be averse to endeavors aimed at improving his conduct and the way others perceive it. I have observed incremental improvements in Dangerous Panda's conduct already. And he and I have resolved disagreements betwixt our selves; amicably, and without drama or pain. Therefore, I urge the committee to reject this case request. The community's means of dispute resolution are sufficient enough, in my opinion, to accomplish the goals of improvement being sought.—] (]) 05:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

===Statement by Cla68===
Some of the suggestions here that user conduct RfCs be reviewed by admins is not a good idea. User conduct RfCs, especially on an admin, need to be kept hands-off by WP administrators to avoid the appearance of them closing ranks to protect one of their own, as appears to be the case here. WP admins are often friends with each other because of chatting on IRC or hanging-out with each other at Wiki-meetups. They need to be kept out of the process when one of their buddies is getting an RfC, perhaps well-deserved, perhaps not, dropped on them. Also, the wiki-lawyering over the RfC process, as happened here, needs to stop. It's hard enough as it is already to ever do anything about abusive users. ] (]) 22:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Hobit ===
I'm leery of making this a "pile-on" of unrelated things, but this user is one of the main reasons I'm not around any more. I've found him to be neither friendly nor helpful and he takes nearly any criticism or questioning as a pure attack and won't actually address issues. The one example that erks me the most is . He stepped forward as a closer, I questioned if he was an unbiased closer (before things were closed) as his actions (IMO) indicated he had a pretty strong personal opinion. Perhaps I badgered too much, but if you are going to step forward as a closer and can't deal with people doubting that you are a good choice, you probably shouldn't be a closer of anything, let alone be an admin.

I'm also pretty annoyed by all the name changes. Perhaps everyone else can manage it, but I've gone through at least 3 times when I figured out this person was very difficult to deal with--each time not realizing they were in fact the same person. I'd have avoided them in many cases had I realized. At the very very least, please keep this person to one account. Or at least one account as an admin. The lutz of changing names isn't enough to justify the confusion caused by anyone doing this, let alone an admin. ] (]) 23:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by ] ===
Maybe the discussion of ] should be taken to ]. I am not ready to offer an opinion of whether the ArbCom should review the conduct of the administrator in question. I do have an opinion about RFC/U. I think that RFC/U has been broken for a '''very''' long time, probably since there was an ArbCom. RFC/U may have been useful before there was an ArbCom, as an input to whether a disruptive editor should be banned by ]. In 2005 and 2006, when the ArbCom handled a hundred cases a year, most of which were to ban users, RFC/U may have been a useful but not necessary intermediate step. RFC/U is no longer, in my opinion, a useful procedure. Either it should be retired from service, or it should be reformed or restructured. The recommended result of an RFC/U has to be stated as an improvement in behavior by the subject editor, but the RFC/U process is inherently adversarial, and isn't likely to result in the subject editor becoming more collaborative. RFC/U may have been a useful way of documenting the need for Jimbo Wales to ban an editor. Now that Jimbo Wales has an ArbCom, RFC/U is no longer useful.
] (]) 16:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by {other user} ===
<!-- Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Please copy this section for the next person. -->

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

=== DangerousPanda: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/0/1/6> ===
{{anchor|1=unsuitability for admin role: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small>
*{{xt|The record is clear enough that NE Ent created a defective RFC/U which had to be deleted because it did not satisfy the minimum requirements}}, I see where you're coming from, but I disagree. As NE Ent points out, when a request for comment deals with a pattern of behaviour occurring over a long lapse of time, then, in my opinion, it stands to reason to interpret the concept of "same dispute" as referring to the conduct in question in general and, so, to consider the RFC validly certified even if the two certifiers have tried to engage the subject of the request about different incidents, provided both evince the same problem (for instance, incivility). That said, before deciding whether to accept or decline the case, I'd rather see more statements. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 16:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
**{{xt|Under your reading an editor can say, "They problem is you have bad judgment as an administrator" and then find another editor who ever held that view, no matter how many years ago, and then start an RFCU.}} "I think you have bad judgement as an administrator" is too vague and would not qualify; "you do not understand how speedy deletion works", on the other hand, in my opinion would. And, in that context, two editors who had discussed with an administrator two different articles he speedied would be acceptable certifiers for a RFC on his knowledge of the speedy deletion criteria. <p>Now the fact that, in this case, one of the certifiers cited a very old case is a better justification; still, in my opinion, it would have been better to discuss before acting, letting him know that you would delete the RFC unless he could provide a more recent discussion. After all, there was absolutely no need to delete the page in a hurry, as the only element that DP considers dangerous for his safety had already been removed. <p> About NE Ent choice of material, I agree that the opinion contained in the various arbguides linked to was unnecessary, but, again, removal would have sufficed. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 00:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
* '''Accept.''' ] ]] 12:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
*Awaiting a statement from Dangerous Panda. ] (]) 17:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
*'''Recuse'''. ] (]) 19:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
*Also awaiting a statement from Dangerous Panda. And Alanscottwalker is correct, RfC/U is not broken, just rarely used correctly. ] (]) 22:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
*I'll also await a statement from DangerousPanda before deciding how to proceed, but my decision will not be significantly influenced by issues regarding the RFCU. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
*I'd like to hear from DangerousPanda also. I generally have a lower threshold for accepting "administrator abuse" cases, because the only place which is adequately set up to deal with them is arbitration. If there is a pattern of problematic actions, an RfC/U is good, but if it cannot be accomplished I do not see the lack of one as being a blocker for an Arbitration case. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 08:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
*Waiting for Panda, but should we not hear from him in a timely manner I only see myself accepting. '']'' <sup>]</sup> 07:20, 4 November 2014 (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 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.