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 06:00, 2 August 2015 view sourceQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits Statement by QuackGuru: cmt← 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>{{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>
== Electronic cigarette ==
'''Initiated by ''' —] <small>]/]</small> '''at''' 17:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|S Marshall}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|QuackGuru}}
*{{userlinks|CFCF}}
*{{userlinks|SPACKlick}}

;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
* .
* .

=== Statement by S Marshall ===
Going to arbcom over this is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but the other avenues open to me have failed and I can't bring myself to drop it. Which makes me, I accept, part of the problem.<p>The instructions for this page tell me to use diffs and links to convince Arbcom to take the case. I think the two diffs I've already provided are sufficient: , closed on the grounds that arbitrators wished to give the (then newly-imposed) community sanctions the chance to work; and , in which there is a consensus that community sanctions have failed.<p>I've named four editors. I could have named two or a dozen ---- the actual case I ask you to take is to look in general at behaviour on the topic area.—] <small>]/]</small> 17:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

;Response to Georgewilliamherbert

Contrary to Georgewilliamherbert I don't see why it would be necessary for Arbcom to go deeply into the history here. Yes, there's a colossal content dispute to solve but that can only be done via mediation, to which this Arbcom case is a necessary prelude. Yes, editors have got a little overexcited in the content dispute and there are conduct issues to address, but in fact what's going on here, as I see it, is about poor judgment rather than bad faith. I can't produce the kind of diffs that are likely to lead to drastic action on Arbcom's part. I hope and expect this case will lead to nothing more than a number of targeted, focused interventions of limited scope and some guidance on how it is and isn't appropriate to behave.—] <small>]/]</small> 20:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by QuackGuru ===

] stated that "There's a much more meaningful problem here, a campaign to keep genuinely reliable sources out of these articles, to push a POV against scientific coverage and treat this {{em|solely}} as a "lifestyle and culture" topic." The issues are far more complicated than one administrator can handle. It involves taking a look at far more than merely behaviour. ] (]) 05:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by CFCF ===
This topic has been subject of a great number of ]s as well as the odd ]. The last dispute I got involved in was upon seeing a number of edits which removed relevant information . I tried to point to the concept of "known unknowns" and how it is treated in medicine. I also explained that the exact same discussion on including such unknowns had occurred just a month or so previously (of which some of very same editors had taken part in). My reluctance to take part in another circuitous discussion resulted in having an ANI-report filed against me. I do not know how to keep SPAs or paid editors away from this topic, so I welcome any ArbCom decision. -- ] ] (]) 17:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by SPACKlick ===
I'm aware of the case. I do believe some intervention is needed in this area there has been a long history of tendentious, battleground, ownership, socking, IDHT and it's not gotten better since the discretionary sanctions began. ] (]) 11:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by content-uninvolved Georgewilliamherbert ===
I was attempting to intervene as an uninvolved administrator but the scope and breadth of the disputes, the historical depth etc. has proved more complicated than I could absorb in my available time. This is a deep complicated one. I recommend the committee use an extended schedule on processing this one, as it will take far more digging and evidence production to adequately address it than average current cases. ] (]) 20:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by involved editor ] ===
Personally speaking I have taken a hiatus from the topic area due to the fact that it is an impossible environment for any editor that prefers consensus over edit-warring/ownership. So yes I certainly think an ArbCom case is required, particularly as all other routes have been exhausted, repeatedly. I would hope that it would be possible to perhaps re-examine my as part of this one.] (]) 21:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by mostly uninvolved Gigs ===
I have only participated sparsely on talk pages for these affected articles that I can recall. I will say that QuackGuru initially struck me as a highly motivated editor in this topic area, but the more I lurked, the more it became clear that they were using subtle and not-so-subtle tactics to subvert the content, steamrolling many other editors in the process. I steered clear from the entire topic area because of this toxicity. I suspect I'm not the only one. ] (]) 05:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by {Non-party} ===
Other editors are free to make relevant comments 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).''
*

=== Electronic cigarette: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <11/0/0/0> ===
{{anchor|1=Electronic cigarette: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small>
*'''Accept''' Clearly we're going to end up dealing with this sooner or later. ]&nbsp;]] 12:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
*'''Accept''' per Yunshui --] &#124; ] 22:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
*'''Accept'''. Last time this was raised at arbcom I had hopes that the community sanctions would work, but time has proven they have not. ] (]) 10:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
*'''Accept''' ] (]) 13:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
*'''Accept''' I think it is time we finally deal with this issue, it just is not being resolved. ] (]) 06:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
*'''Accept''' '']'' <sup>]</sup> 06:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
*'''Accept''' ''']''' (]) 14:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
*'''Accept'''. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 14:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
*'''Accept''', the community resolutions have clearly not been sufficient here. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
* As I said last time, '''Accept.''' ] ]] 19:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
*'''Accept''' ''']<font color="darkgreen">]</font>''' 15:45, 1 August 2015 (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.