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 18:32, 19 October 2018 view sourceVanamonde93 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators80,213 edits →Statement by Vanamonde93: re← 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>{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}} <noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:ARC|a guide on talk page archiving|H:ARC}}
{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{-}}
{{shortcut|WP:ARC}}
</noinclude> </noinclude>
=<includeonly>]</includeonly>= <includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for arbitration}}}}</noinclude>
{{NOINDEX}}
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=45%</noinclude>}} {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}}
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>

== User:JzG/Politics ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 20:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|Obsidi}}, ''filing party''
*{{admin|JzG}}

;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 Obsidi ===
I request review of the actions of an administrator, ], and if those actions are within the standard expected of an administrator per ] that {{tq|Administrators are expected to follow Misplaced Pages policies}}. Specifically in creating the page ] and if that violated the policies and guidelines against ], ], ], and ]. These actions ] ], but there was no consensus on if there was violation of policy or not.

I believe the most serious problem is the claims that other users are {{tq|probably not competent to edit Misplaced Pages}}, specifically cited to ], for what I consider to be political opinions, is a violation of ]. People are blocked from WP all the time for ]. Even if JzG will not actually block people for such beliefs, a statement like this by an administrator with the tools to block anyone, at any time, is chilling to those who hold the opinions that JzG assails. How will people who hold these views change their behavior around JzG after reading this?

The parts I believe are best classified as political beliefs for which no editor should be attacked or vilified are whether (1) they believe {{tq|Trump is a good President}}, (2) that {{tq|abstinence-only sex education}} is appropriate, and (3) that {{tq|justice in the US is fair and racially neutral.}} I actually agree with JzG on many of these political opinions, but I consider these opinions that people can hold and still edit WP without deserving to be attacked or vilified for these opinions. As ] states {{tq|We have many different views, perspectives, opinions, and backgrounds, sometimes varying widely. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an international online encyclopedia.}}

I am not asking that JzG be desysoped, I think a lesser sanction of a warning and removal of the offending parts of the page would adequate (although obviously if this committee finds a violation the remedies are up to you). There are many people who have made a variety of good arguments why the entire page should be removed for reasons of ], ], and ]. But I ask, at least, that the references to ] be removed as an inappropriate ] against other editors who hold those political beliefs. - ] (]) 20:38, 17 October 2018‎ (UTC)
:For those that are saying this is ], arbitration is a venue of last resort, it requires that prior dispute resolution attempts through noticeboards or other such dispute resolutions have already occurred. If it was ] to appeal to Arbcom after such dispute resolution was tried then almost no case would ever be accepted. I wasn't even aware the DRV was occurring as I considered the close to accurately describe the lack of consensus by the community. But, that is why ArbCom exists, to resolve such disputes when the community is unable to do so. Nor did "community consensus not go my way," it was resolved as no consensus, meaning it didn't go my way or not my way. -] (]) 23:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by JzG ===
The assertions of POLEMIC etc. have been tested at MfD and failed. It is certainly a legitimate view, but it is not one that is universally held: it appears that the actual demand here is that side of this divide be recognised as correct by ArbCom. ArbCom does not do that.

What conduct or administrative actions are under question? I have stated my views, as a non-American looking at American politics form outside, and looking in particular at its effects on the editing of articles on Misplaced Pages. There is no significant informed dissent from the view that this kind of editing can be, and often is, a problem. There are past cases on US politics, gun control, climate change and other topic areas I discuss. In response to feedback, I have clarified what I am actually saying, which is that the collision between ideology and fact is a problem for Misplaced Pages, and the determination of a segment of the media that because ideology conflicts with fact, so fact must be wrong, is an even bigger problem. I have listened to what people have said. I have edited to further clarify the point I am actually making. It appears that the issue is that some people want me not to have these views.

I have also been careful to distinguish statements of opinion from statements of fact. I am always open to discussing the boundary between the two. Nobody has tried that, they have merely objected to my saying any of it at all. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
* {{rto|Pudeo}}
:# I had no idea who Clockback was when I blocked him, the block was discussed and consensus is that it was valid based on Clockback's POV-pushing, which subsequently turned out to be COI. The source of the block was not even a politics related article.
:# I did indeed initiate the BLP issues on British politics articles case, against Philip Cross, with whose politics I seem to agree (at least in as much as I have read any of his edits outside the Galloway article). Thanks for mentioning it.
:# The term "Daily Heil" is in common use in the UK, especially by Private Eye, due to the Mail's far-right politics and historical support of the Nazis and Oswald Mosley. ] happened in part because the Mail literally does make shit up.
:# The "scholarly article" by Brian Martin is a single-author rant about how Misplaced Pages is terrible because his biography is much less flattering than these other people who don't happen to be AIDS denialist anti-vaxers who supervised the ]. Newsflash: Andy Wakefield probably feels the same way. This has zero political relevance as far as I am aware.
: These are of course old news and not related to the case at issue. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by Sir Joseph ===
I would also add ] to the question.
As to my answer, it is quite clear that it violates POLEMIC and BLP and should not be here. It is detrimental to Misplaced Pages. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by Dlohcierekim ===
While it is true that some people see this as violating Polemic or BLP, it does not in fact do so. The purpose of the page has already been explained by JzG-- to explore and describe the polarizing effect of the current American political situation on the views and editing of long established users as well as new comers. The attempt to delete the page and the stretching of BLP and POLEMIC out of shape to do do is a demonstration of that effect to some degree. And yes, we are seeking a second bite at the apple after having missed at ]. No, it's the third bite. There was a discussion at ANI as well. This dog just can't hunt 'cause it ain't a dog. It's a straw horse..-- ] (]) 20:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
:I've read the statements up to this point and comment further. I believe ArbCom should take this case because it will otherwise return to ANI & AN & MFD repeatedly. Whichever outcome is subsequently reached will almost certainly be appealed cyclically by whoever disagrees furthering the disruption and delaying the inevitable. I did in fact partake in the MfD and felt the thing should be deleted though not under POLEMIC or BLP. Consensus was against that position. Consensus was against the page needing deletion under POLEMIC or BLP. The continual furor is deeper than an MFD appeal and sour grapes; it is within the purview of ArbCom to settle the matter of the deeper issues once and for all. -- ] (]) 00:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
:I further echo Soflavender's point which seems to me to be that this very case proves what JzG has been trying to say with the page in question.-- ] (]) 00:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by 28bytes ===
Please decline this request. Nothing good will come of a months-long case about an editor's userspace opinions on the suitability of Trump supporters editing Misplaced Pages. The community is pretty evenly divided about whether editors should be allowed to state such opinions in userspace, and there's nothing in ArbCom's remit to "fix" that. ] (]) 21:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by MjolnirPants ===
<facepalm> Some people just need a safe space where they can be free of all critique and criticism and live ensconced in the notion that everyone agrees with them. Some of those people think WP is the place for this. The irony is not lost on me. Decline this request; no-one has been able to find fault with this page except by distorting the obvious meaning. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 21:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by Objective3000 ===
I never ventured an opinion on this (and closed the original AN/I thread by request of the OP) and I remain on the fence. But, the no consensus close was not only good but glaringly obvious for some time. I think further discussion on a non-drama board might be useful as to fine tuning related policies. But, this filing should be declined on its merits. ] (]) 21:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
=== Statement by Funplussmart ===
I don't think we need an ARBCOM case for this yet. We have not exhausted all community efforts to resolve this. (I have learned from the Creationism request a while back that this is too soon). ] (]) 22:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by GMG ===
I suppose I'm involved in this. Obviously I think the content is policy violating, and counterproductive besides. I would much prefer that someone who cared imminently more about the mission of the project than they did about their personal predilections would just digest the criticism they've already been given and take the content down, even if they think they're justified in having it up, because they recognize that it not conducive to collaboration.

Whether it's ArbCom's remit to enforce policy when the community decides to give it a pass is above my pay grade. ]] 22:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by Jayron32 ===
I urge the committee to decline this expeditiously. This is a clear case of ]. The community held an MFD, a DRV (that two editors had endorsed the initial close of the MFD before being procedurally closed in lieu of this case filing) and an ANI thread, and since the MFD didn't get closed the way the supporters wanted it to, and DRV was failing to go that way as well, they filed this. ARBCOM cases are not places to go when community consensus doesn't go one's way. --]] 22:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by Davey2010 ===
This should be declined - Ani didn't work, MFD didn't work and DRV didn't work .... and neither will this venue, Infact no venue is going to work, Personally I think the page is fine as per Freedom of Speech and all that but either way we're all here to improve the encyclopedia not complain over someones userpage essay. –]<sup>]</sup> 22:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by OID ===
A number of the editors above should read ], specifically the scope section. It does not include 'Over-ruling XFDs that didnt give me the result I wanted'. ] (]) 23:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by Beyond My Ken ===
This complaint amounts to ] and should be rejected by the Committee.

Alex Shih's close of the MfD was clearly correct, as there was quite obviously '''''no consensus to delete'''''. There are extremely few Misplaced Pages policies which are bright-line hard-and-fast rules, they are almost all subject in their specific application to the interpretation of the community. The contention that the page in question is an obvious violation of multiple policies is therefore belied by the fact that the community did not come to the consensus that this was the case. Only community consensus can validate such a supposed violation, not the personal interpretations of individual editors.

I do not see that there is a case here: if Alex Shih's close was correct, and there was no consensus to delete, is it ArbCom's place to overrule that community consensus, or lack thereof? Will ArbCom next be asked to overrule every XfD or DRV in the face of a correct closing simply because some editors vehemently disagree with it? ] (]) 23:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

===Statement by Bishonen===
ArbCom is being asked to micromanage a userpage question that's a matter for the community, not the committee. I say that as someone who might have !voted Delete if I'd happened to be aware of the MfD, which I was not. JzG's essay is an impressive, even exhilarating, piece of writing — clear, concise, punch-you-in-the-chest focused and logical — but is it for Misplaced Pages? I'm not sure. I ''am'' sure, though, that that's not for ArbCom to determine. ] &#124; ] 00:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC).

===Statement by Drmies===
ArbCom is being asked to micromanage a userpage question that's a matter for the community, not the committee. I say that as someone who might have !voted Delete if I'd happened to be aware of the MfD, which I was not. JzG's essay is an impressive, even exhilarating, piece of writing — clear, concise, punch-you-in-the-chest focused and logical — but is it for Misplaced Pages? I'm not sure. I ''am'' sure, though, that that's not for ArbCom to determine. In other words, per ]. Wait. That's the same words. ] (]) 03:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
*{{U|Masem}}, I think ''one'' of the real problems might well be your use of "identity politics", which you seem to use as a bad word. You can hardly use that word here without a thorough analysis of JzG's "identity" in as much as we know it, and I wonder how far that will take you--I'm going to guess JzG is an old white guy like me, . The way in which you seem to mean it resembles how I see it on Facebook and talk shows, where it typically is used to denigrate those who claim that their identity (black, female, colored, transgender, etc.) matters and shouldn't be erased. In that sense it is an equivalent of the old "you just voted for Obama cause you're black". This is obviously ''not'' the place to have that discussion, but I am not going to let that unquestioned and supposedly transparent use of a loaded term go by without placing an asterisk. If you want to defuse a charged situation, don't throw in coded/loaded terms. ] (]) 16:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

===Statement by Softlavender===
I don't see anything that rises to the level of ArbCom, so I think this case should be declined. Since opinions about the page have come down sharply on partisan lines, and since Misplaced Pages has been beset with partisanship and strongly politically biased editing for the past two years, which has been seriously hard to regulate (and which JzG's page seems simply an attempt to help regulate or an attempt to express his frustration over), this RFAR seems like another salvo in partisan POV-pushing. I agree with the points made by OID (]) and BMK (]). -- ] (]) 00:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

*'''Pet peeve''': Could people please remember to spell the various noticeboards correctly? Numerous people here and elsewhere have said that there has been a discussion about the issue at "ANI", when there has been no such thing as far as I can tell. Please learn the difference between ] and ], and spell the acronyms correctly. Thank you. ] (]) 03:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
**OK, I see people are talking about ]. That was '''resolved'''; the material was moved from and expanded into a subpage. I am not sure why the ANI thread is being cited as part of the DR here, since at that time the material was not at ] (which is completely different from, and far more extensive than, what was discussed at ANI), and discussion in that ANI thread ceased when the material was moved and greatly expanded to the subpage. ] (]) 03:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

*You broke in line, {{U|Drmies}}. I'll get you for that. ] (]) 04:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

*{{Re|Masem}} "{{xt|We have to be aware that the media, even the most reliable sources, hate Trump and the right and etc.,}} ...." I find this a very odd statement because that is not my perception at all; quite the reverse in fact. ] (]) 05:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by SemiHypercube ===
I was okay with the debate when it was just at ], but yeah, this probably shouldn't be taken to ArbCom (but I will note that the page may also violate ], as it does state {{tq|"If you believe that a corporation can have a sincerely held religious belief, I think you're an idiot"}}, but it's probably not worthy of being taken to ArbCom. {{re|JzG}} should probably trim it a little so we can stop this madness. <span style="text-shadow:#069 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">]] ]</span> 01:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
:Actually, looking at some of the issues raised below, this may be worth going over. <span style="text-shadow:#069 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">]] ]</span> 11:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by PackMacEng ===
I was not sure if I was going to comment here but seeing some of the other comments gave me some concern. I would normally think this should be the last stop, but in this case other avenues were tried first. The thread at ] was closed multiple times. Though to be fair on the last one that was after this case was filed. One of the closes said to take it to ]. Which was promptly closed within minutes as well. Given that this does appear to be the final binding decision-maker option with others forced closed gaining little community input, it seems reasonable to continue here. ] (]) 01:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I also want to note that no consensus, is not the same as consensus to keep. Even if we just went by a head count it was a 50/50 split, clearly plenty of people had issue with it. ] (]) 02:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

===Statement by Robert McClenon===

This Request for Arbitration is frivolous at best. The filing party is apparently not even asking the ArbCom to impose any real remedies or sanctions. The filing party says that they are not asking the ArbCom to desysop JzG / Guy. So in that case, what are they asking? Apparently they are asking the ArbCom to warn him and to remove parts of the page that has already been the subject of discussion. It appears that they want ArbCom to engage in exploratory fault-finding, like an annoyed editor who files at ] and doesn’t request sanctions, only discussion, never mind that ANI isn’t a discussion forum but a forum for administrative remedies.

ArbCom exists to deal with situations that polarize and divide the community, when the community is unable, due to its division, to act. In this case, the divided community did act in the form of the ] discussion, and the result was No Consensus. I mostly agree with JzG’s / Guy’s assessment of Mr. Trump, except that, as an
American, I know reasonable people who support Mr. Trump, and so I know JzG / Guy is making an invalid inference about ]. I favored deletion of the polemic, but it was closed as No Consensus, and that is the judgment of the community, that the community is divided between those who think that the polemic should be deleted, and those who think that it is a valid expression of personal opinion. He already now has notice that a large segment of the community thinks that the polemic is inappropriate, and is a misuse of web hosting.

I thank ] and ] for ], which the filing parties at DRV and at ArbCom have not done.

There are two questions for ArbCom. The first is whether to accept the case. That is an obvious No, because the request is frivolous and is ]. The second is whether to issue an ArbCom ] to the filer. The ArbCom hasn’t done that in the past.

The filing party now is asking the ArbCom to make an already unpleasant situation worse by second-guessing the community and making a stupid issue about a stupid statement go on and on and on. This Request for Arbitration is frivolous at best. I don’t know what it is at worst.

] (]) 01:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by Jytdog ===
This is definition of forum shopping. If this were ANI I would be looking for some sort of remedy, but I don't reckon that happens here. ] (]) 02:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by Vanamonde93 ===
*Since my DRV closure has been mentioned above, let me just say for the record that it was a procedural close. DRV is meant to assess whether or not someone closing a deletion discussion judged consensus properly. It is not meant for re-litigating said XfD. The opening statement there was essentially presenting an argument for deletion, not challenging the close (and it is extremely difficult to justify any other result in that MfD). I think that the most painless solution to this would be for {{U|JzG}} to move that content off-wiki: I do not see it serving much purpose. If that doesn't happen, and the other participants are unwilling to drop this, there are still avenues open to sort this out; another MfD, or a discussion at ANI. But I really don't see much for ARBCOM here, because I do not see how judging the appropriateness of that page falls within ARBCOM's remit. ] (]) 03:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
*:Replying to some of what {{U|Masem}} has written (and, indirectly, {{U|Drmies}}): you, Masem, and I, and Drmies, may have our own views as to political biases in the media and/or popular culture. The fact is, all of them are irrelevant. We have a policy about keeping a neutral point of view, which defines NPOV very simply; NPOV requires giving due weight to all significant points of view in reliable sources. That's it. There's nothing there about political affiliation. This is actually a very elegant definition, because it throws out everything that's out in the real world except the sources which we should be using to write in the first place. This definition means that we sometimes take a viewpoint that fits very well with US-based conservatism (in how we discuss GMOs, for instance); sometimes with US liberals (Climate change); sometimes somewhere in between (Trans-Pacific Partnership). Even if we did reflect a conservative (or liberal, or leftist, or pro-US) POV in all our work, though, that ''wouldn't matter'', '''as long as''' we accurately reflect the POV of the body of source material on any topic, which is defined by ]. This framework is essential, because it allows an evidence-based means for people with conflicting viewpoints to work together. If you're rejecting that framework because {{tq|"even the most reliable sources, hate Trump and the right"}} we have a problem: no framework for collaboration exists anymore. You can't drop that in ARBCOM's lap: ARBCOM's remit is to apply policy ''as written''. ARBCOM does not create policy, and revising the BLP and NPOV guidelines because "reliable sources hate Trump" is not within its mandate. If you really believe such a revision is required, a proposal to modify NPOV is the way to go (though I do not expect that would be a good use of your time). ] (]) 17:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
*::{{re|Masem}} {{tq|"editors do not want to work outside of what our RSes"}} They shouldn't. That's my point. Even framing debates needs to be done from material that's in decent sources; otherwise there's nothing at all to judge between my views on the larger debate, and yours. ] (]) 18:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
*:::{{re|Masem}} Well, we can agree to disagree on philosophy as long we're both, as admins, enforcing policy as written (and that's kind of my point). It's for this reason that I cannot compel JzG to delete the content from his userspace. I've already recommended, above, that he remove it; but that's just my view, which isn't unambiguously policy-based. What I'm saying is I don't have to think that essay violates policy for me to believe it isn't the best idea. ] (]) 18:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

===Statement by Cullen328===
The community has been unable to reach a consensus to delete this essay and so it must stay if JzG wants to keep it. Personally, I recommend that he store these writings off-Misplaced Pages but my opinion about that is not relevant to this matter. By keeping the essay, he violates no policies, guidelines or norms of adminstrator behavior, though it is clear that the essay irritates some people and he knows that. Those who disagree with the essay can either discuss the content with him, or ignore it. I recommend that ArbCom decline this case. ] ] 04:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by Mythdon ===
I commented at both the ANI thread and the MFD. I certainly believe in keeping one's political opinion off Misplaced Pages (it's of no relevance to the project), but what JzG did was perfectly in line with both ] and ] (JzG even addressed the concerns that some members of the community had), but that's a separate issue. This complaint is essentially asking the committee to act as if they're some DRV. There's nothing to arbitrate and none of the complainants have demonstrated that JzG acted unbecoming of an administrator. If the complaint was instead that JzG abused his admin rights because of his views, then there'd be a case, but even the filer themselves has clearly demonstrated that's not the case. Clearly this request is ], <s>]</s>.—] (] • ]) 04:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by MONGO ===
I surely concur with the concerns of the polemic nature of the essay in question but this is not a concern for the committee and this should be dismissed. These are views expressed in userspace and are opinions and perceptions that the user is entitled to no matter how biased and/or ridiculous they may be. At least there is no ambiguity as to where they stand. For the record, and as an editor with a long history of fighting off 9/11 CTers, JzG was right alongside that and defended my overall efforts. It is also important to note that the news is the worst written citable (reliable) source we have for modern current politics and that it is invariably biased one way or the other due to the need to rush to press, sell copy, please a demographic or satisfy an itch. The News lacks the ability to view things through a nonpartisan or unemotional lens and does not provide excellent sourcing that BLPs on current politicians and politics deserve.--] (]) 05:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by BullRangifer ===

I note that some believe that editors should keep their political opinions off Misplaced Pages, and that they have no relevance to the project. That may well be true in some cases, but this case is very different.

Here we have JzG's clear elucidation of the fact that an editor's political POV can negatively affect their ] to edit political subjects. It is their editing that is the primary problem, not their political POV, yet it's a fact that it affects their editing. Trump constantly attacks RS, and his war on RS must be resisted and not affect us. Unfortunately we have many editors who believe RS are fake news, and they get that idea from Trump. Being a diehard Trump supporter has serious consequences for editing here. It creates a serious CIR problem. If an editor can't vet sources, or they believe what Trump says about RS, they fail one of the most basic qualifications for editing here.

Thus we see that JzG is not merely expressing his personal POV, but directly addressing a serious problem which affects editing and discussions on our political articles. The editors who create disruption by treating Trump's conspiracy theories as fact sometimes get topic banned, not because they are Trump supporters, but because that fact causes them to be fringe editors who ] views found in unreliable sources. JzG would not block them for their political views, but would likely block any such editor who edits disruptively, as these editors often do.

] and ] make good points. This very case (and the attacks against the essay) proves JzG is right, and I suggest this counts for enshrining and protecting his essay as valuable to the project.

This case should be dismissed, and those who attack the essay should learn from it, because it exposes the sore spots that make them less valuable as editors. -- ] (]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 05:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

* I've said it before, and this case proves it: This fringe POV witch hunt (for ''some'' critics, that's what it is) is a ] providing even more evidence that the concerns JzG expresses are valid and that the community should rally behind him and defend him and his essay. This criticism of JzG damages the community and lends credence to fringe advocacy of unreliable sources and fringe POV. When admirable and reliably-sourced criticism of ''The Daily Mail'', Trump, and others who push unreliable sources is attacked here and elsewhere, it is those attackers, not JzG, who should be warned. They are on the wrong side of this issue. They have ]. -- ] (]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 14:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

* ] mentions strongly negative BLP claims (as an example: "rapist or sexual predator") and whether an essay "crosses a line" by making such claims. Since BLP applies to all of Misplaced Pages, including essays, this is a relevant observation. The sourcing requirement is exactly the same, even if the claim is not mentioned in the BLP article or elsewhere. If the essay provides RS for the claim, then it should be okay. If it's questionable, we should deal with it the same way we would in an article, IOW take it to the talk page and discuss the matter. (The fate of the essay is not questioned because of that.)
: The strongest BLP claim in this particular essay is likely related to Trump's dubious relationship to truth. Well, documenting Trump's lying (WaPo: over 5,000 now) is about the easiest thing any editor can do, with literally hundreds (actually thousands) of extremely RS to prove it as fact, not just opinion. That Trump is far from honest isn't even a controversial claim. Declaring the sky is blue is more controversial and harder to prove. {{;)}} -- ] (]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 06:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by Masem ===
There are numerous issues related to the essay and the AFDs/DRVs that represents the larger issue around WP that relates to trying to cover anything with an ounce of politics or gender/race/sexuality/etc. that extends from the broader media.

* For one, JzG's essay is essentially pulling in identity politics to diminish contributions from editors that have a different POV from them. I've been on that side during Gamergate, having been called a "rape apologist" and a "sealion" from trying to discuss the neutrality of the GG article. That is 100% not acceptable, and the essay is absolutely promoting that. JzG can say that they will debate fiercely with an editor that bring a pro-Trump POV to a discussion page, as long as the discussion remains civil and doesn't slip into edit warring. But to say, basically, that JzG is calling them incompetent editors for being pro-Trump or any of the other issues is throwing out good faith. We need behavior to judge if one's POV is an issue, and if one edit wars to retain their POV, then good faith is out the window.
* JzG's essay also definitely verves into BLP by using identity politics towards Trump and others to say why we should not consider any pro-Trump viewpoint. I can agree that a reasonable statement of why one dislikes Trump to explain one's position is fine, but this should not descend into personal attacks against a BLP.

Interestingly enough, the essay hits on points that I think do reflect the broad problems related to this essay and the situations around BLP and AFD/DRV. There is definitely tribalism going on by a large number of editors involved in the AP2 area but I have found more and more that they seem to be unaware of the situation that they have created, because they have put so much weight on standing steadfast on policies and guidelines related to reliable sources. We have to be aware that the media, even the most reliable sources, hate Trump and the right and etc., and their methods of reporting have changed to personalize the matter and pull in identity politics. Editors of the same mindset want to walk lock-step with the media, which ''seems'' proper and all but to anyone that is not of the same viewpoint, there is something seriously wrong with how WP is reacting to this. I feel a lot of editors have gone blind and/or know that our policies make it very difficult to argue against what the media state, despite all the additional cautionary language in there. (Most here know I'm urging from stronger adherence to NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM to avoid most of the issues that result from the confluence of the media's ''tone'' and WP's tribalism. That's a whole another essay out of scope here).

The question is if ARBCOM can do anything here, and the only real thing here would be to try to evaluate the AFDs/DRVs in consideration of knowing that editors want to blindly follow the media and determine if those stances are detrimental to having actually open, sane discussions and assuming good faith, and determine if the issues around BLP, CIR, and POLEMIC were trying to be swept under the rug because JzG's viewpoint happens to agree with both the media and these other editors. That is something in ARBCOM's power, given the divisive splits on the AFDs. The real problem extends well past ARBCOM. --] (]) 05:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
:{{ping|Drmies}} My meaning of the term "identity politics" here is related to our WP mantra "discuss the content, not the contributor", eg in the media, the use of ] to attack politically-opposed opponents to degrade their arguments. It is not meant to be the advocacy-related version of the term (eg fighting for equal rights from underrepresented groups). --] (]) 17:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
:{{ping|Vanamonde93}} It is not that the framework is broken, but that editors do not want to work outside of what our RSes say to consider the larger debate, so that our articles do a better job of framing controversial topics in an impartial tone and approach. This page is not the place to go into details about this, but closing off the opinions of others because they have a certain viewpoint is why we have so many problems in disputes in the AP2 area because editors don't want to seem to engage in long but civil discussions about the larger issues at hand for controversial topics that RSes tend to hand-wave away to support their view. --] (]) 18:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
::{{ping|Vanamonde93}} Your view and my view are probably a fundamental philosophical difference among editors over what role WP should be taking, and effectively part of why JzG's essay is so divisive here, with editors falling on either side of that divide. I will still argue there are facets of JzG's essay that regardless of this divide are improper to be presented by an admin, but ArbCom is not going to solve that divide, but should be aware it exists. --] (]) 18:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by Govindaharihari===
* ] - is an awful opinionated clap trap and no admin on wikipedia should be allowed to expound such trash opinion presented as fact or opinionated cited verified content, sorry it is awful and is only not deleted by the community because the community is like democrats and republicans , no consensus. An administrator on wikipedia should raise above all that and not cause additional divisions like that, sad to see the commmunity policy and ] workings fail so hard that this page has not been deleted already and so as the community imho has been unable to carry out the core policies of the project that the commitee will look at this ] (]) 06:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
=== Statement by Hawkeye7 ===

If arbitration is truly a last resort, then taking a case to ArbCom cannot be regarded as forum shopping. ArbCom is under no obligation to take this or any case, but if the question is "if ARBCOM can do anything", then the answer is that there is always something that ArbCom can do. The community's MfD and DRV process have worked exactly as designed. Arbitration can too. ] ] 08:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by Pudeo ===
JzG has been involved in some politics-related controversies that have off-wiki ] aspects in the last 6 months alone:

*The blocking of the Misplaced Pages account of the English conservative journalist ]: ]
*JzG initiated the ] based on Philip Cross' off-wiki COI
*After the ] ban, JzG has referred to the publication several times as "Daily Heil" along with characterisations like "bullshit" or "making shit up news"
*JzG was criticized by name in a scholarly article by ] which detailed ] in the peer-reviewed journal '']''. JzG denied that this would be a case of ] and removed the reference in which he himself was mentioned in (). After that, he started removing Brian Martin's references from other articles too, as detailed by {{u|Netoholic}} in ]. JzG told Netoholic, indirectly through a little word game, to "fuck off" after he asked him to consider COI on his talkpage (). JzG also started an ] describing the article as an "off-wiki attack on an admin".

Polemical attitude towards politics and a hypocritical approach on COI issues is not the best thing for the integrity of his admin actions, especially when dealing with issues that have off-wiki components.--] (]) 10:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by Alanscottwalker ===
As a matter of process, there do seem to be grounds to criticize the close of the MFD: The closer has not made clear that he was not just vote counting when MFD's are suppose to be decided based on policy arguments. Thus, the closer should openly assess the !votes that: 1) stated no policy; 2) that expressed ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT or IAGREEWITHIT/IDONTAGREEWITHIT; 3) just attacked the other side; or 4) just made odd process objections, like somehow you can't have an MFD after an AN/I. Turning to policy/guideline, the close only mentioned one, POLEMIC, so appears not to have dealt with BLP; NOTSOAP in UPNOT (to the filer, that's the same as NOTADVOCACY); NOTWEBHOST; ATTACK; or ASPERSION - a good close would have addressed them all, and analysed them all with reference to them, because they were actually raised in the MFD. I don't know whether the closer has been made aware of such critique, nor how he responded. To the filer, has he?

One thing I do know, is that criticisms of all ivoters as partisan, are false, and likely aspersions. Whether Trump's name or some other living person's name is on the subject userpage, it would not change the policy/guideline analyses.

The Forum Shopping critique of this filing is not well made - it may be or not be the right forum at this time, but is a valid additional forum, as lack of consensus up to now has been declared, which means that working through various forums to find consensus or the way forward, even if it is binding process of Arbcom, is valid. -- ] (]) 10:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by SoWhy ===
A minor point maybe but I think one that should explicitly be made: JzG has, by creating this subpage, explicitly stated his biases, just like many users (including admins) regularly do on their user pages (userboxes etc.). This means other users now can now determine ''more easily'' whether a certain administrative action JzG performs is potentially problematic or not, thus enabling more ] review than if they did not state their beliefs. I, too, have openly stated my political and philosophical stances on my userpage for that very reason. As such, this case lacks merit because declaring biases is very much in line with ]. If someone can provide examples of administrative misconduct, i.e. tool use related to these biases, please do so. So far, I did not see any claims of that. Regards ]] 11:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

:{{ping|Nil Einne}} There is a difference between biases and BLP violations. Saying the current president of the United States frequently tells lies , saying he is a rapist is not. The former might make someone biased wrt Donald Trump, the latter would be an unacceptable BLP violation. In this case though, there is no indication that JzG violated BLP with this list or at least, I cannot see it (while I do admit some of the chosen wording could be considered problematic wrt BLP, there seems to be no actual comments on specific living people that are not reflected in reliable sources). Regards ]] 09:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by WaltCip ===
This filing came too soon, I feel. It would be a poor precedence for ARBCOM to serve as an AFD Round 3 (or 4?) in this case, which is essentially what is happening here, even if they may have been utilized as such in the past. This case should be dismissed.--] (]) 12:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Comment from SN54129 ===
I agree that the request borders on the frivolous (if not actually being so), particularly since—as has been touched upon above—the complaint does not actually seek any sanction against JzG ''that the community could'' '''''already''''' ''have imposed: and has chosen not to''. And, arguably, has chosen not to do so in ''multiple'' arenas. ]]] 12:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by Banedon ===
I think Arbcom should accept the case. A significant number of people were offended by the essay. The rationale behind declining the case is, the solution from the previous dispute resolution is sufficient - but that solution is "JzG did nothing wrong and Obsidi should not feel offended", which is hardly a solution. The people offended are still going to be offended. By having an Arbcom case, this dispute can be resolved even if the result is the same (sort of like how I'd be more satisfied if a lower court rules against me, but I appeal and the higher court still rules against me).

The dispute should be within Arbcom's remit - it's about JzG's conduct in writing the essay. Remember a case doesn't have to result in sanctions. Even if Arbcom finds against JzG, it can amend the essay instead of sanctioning JzG.

There's also one thing to be said about the MfD: Alex Shih effectively had only two choices, to delete or not to delete. He couldn't have said something like, "you can keep most of it but delete this sentence". Arbcom can.

In short: accept the case since it will ''resolve'' the dispute. If Arbcom does not accept the case, the only way this dispute will be resolved is if the people who were offended stop being offended, which is not realistic.
] (]) 01:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by Nil Einne ===
I think we need to be clear that the community has not decided that the page is okay as some seem to have suggested. At least according to the closer. There was no consensus therefore the community has been unable to reach a decision. When there is no consensus, we do not take action, that is fair enough. But it's not the same as the community having decided it's the right course. Note that I am not saying this means arbcom should take the case. Arbcom may very well feel that when the community can't decide on something like this, it's better for them to let it be as they don't rule on content disputes. Or whatever else. I don't have much of an opinion on whether this is something arbcom can or should deal with. Regardless, hopefully one day the community can make a decision either way. Or maybe we never will but it will become a moot point, either because Guy decides to remove the content or because no one cares anymore as things have changed in the US. Or maybe it will forever be an issue that divides the community. While the later may seem unfortunate, there are always going to be cases like that in any community made up of a large number of people with vastly different outlooks etc.

With regards to ]'s point I don't see that any form of 'declaring biases' is okay or allowed under ]. If I say on my user page that I believe some (named) well known political figure (e.g. e.g. the current or former president or a judge of some country) is a rapist or sexual predator and their wikipedia article doesn't say that, I am not convinced the community would, or should, allow this even if it's a form of 'declaring biases'. This doesn't mean this particular essay crosses that line, simply the there has to be a line. The question of where that line is is obviously unclear although I suspect even if I link to various sources and opinion pieces to try to support the examples I gave, that would be a problem. And my earlier comments on arbcom still stand.

] (]) 05:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by Kingsindian ===
I am only commenting on the part about {{noping|Clockback}}, Peter Hitchens in real life. I have no reason to believe that JzG blocked Clockback based on some kind of anti-conservative prejudice. Indeed, as JzG said, they didn't even know who Clockback was -- all indications point to the truth of this statement. There were plenty of wrong things about the block, but following some sort of nefarious political agenda wasn't one of them. ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 07:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by Cryptic ===
Re ]'s assertion above about the MFD close: removing part of a page is within MFD's remit. Five minutes' searching found precedent at ] ] ] ] ] ] ], and none of them are even the half-remembered example I was looking for. —] 07:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Statement by Chess ===
While I don't believe that this case is ArbCom worthy, I would respectfully ask that ] abstain from taking administrative action in all mentioned subjects from now on, as he is quite clearly ]. Looking at recent actions in ] appears to show heavily administrative involvement in topics relating to US politics. I would hope that this involvement ceases from now on, as his clear lack of neutrality on these issues is evident. Perhaps others could reply to this with their opinions on whether this makes JzG involved or not? Grognard Extraordinaire ] ] Ping when replying 13:16, 19 October 2018 (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. * -->

=== User:JzG/Politics: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*

=== User:JzG/Politics: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/7/0> ===
{{anchor|1=Does ] violate ], ], ], or ]?: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small>
*Leaning toward declining. Thoughts:
**Whether the disputed userspace page should be kept is the userspace equivalent of a content dispute. Content disputes are resolved by community discussion on pages such as XfD, not by ArbCom. Where the concern is that userspace content may be unduly divisive and disreputable, the principles discussed in ] (2007) are relevant, but they have long since been written into policy, and the community is at least as capable as we are of applying them.
**Something closer to this Committee's role might be to determine that in light of JzG's strongly held and expressed views on the current U.S. presidential administration, he should not take administrator actions in the American politics topic-area&mdash;but if I recall correctly, he has already stated that he doesn't plan to do so.
**JzG might have been better advised to drop the disputed portion of his page in the interest of collegiality, but the MfD has concluded that he was not ''required'' to do so, and I don't see so many similar pages that we need to go through a test case to clarify policy in this area.
**As a bit of a "meta" observation: a vast majority of the disputes that previously were resolved by ArbCom are now decided by other means. This request is an example. A decade ago, this case request would have been brought two weeks ago, and would probably have been accepted, and the elected arbitrators would have made a decision. Now that arbitration is truly a last resort, the community has discussed the matter at length on ANI and on MfD, and has reached, in this case, a "no consensus so do nothing" result. Exercise for next month's candidates: Which method of decision-making is better, and when, and why?
**I'll ponder this request for a bit longer, and consider any more statements that come in and my colleagues' views. ] (]) 00:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
*Certainly declining the question in the title. The community was able to handle this at MfD, or rather, was able to come to a decision that this didn't need handling. I don't see the Arbitration Committee as having a role in overruling a community decision when the dispute resolution process has largely functioned correctly. We step in when that process breaks down or when the community agrees something must be done but can't determine what. There's a possibility for questions related to ] or ] if JzG has acted in this topic area, and I would consider that ripe for arbitration if it exists, as it examines suitability for adminship. I see no indication of any such actions, but I'll hold off on a formal vote for a couple days to see if anything pops up. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 01:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
**I'd like to add that the partisan sniping in some of the statements above is not a good look for anyone. Please stick to the merits of this as an arbitration case rather than making lofty statements about those who may disagree with you about the correct outcome of the MfD. Such statements are unhelpful in resolving this situation. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 06:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
**'''Decline'''. I don't see anything here that rises to the level of ArbCom. Pudeo is the only one who has spoken to an administrative action, but only a single one (the block), and I don't think that rises to the level of arbitration. Given his obviously strong opinions on politics, I'd recommend JzG not act as an administrator in similar future situations. This action appears to be isolated, and it was endorsed by the community. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 02:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
***Responding to the idea that the MfD could not have resulted in the deletion of only certain content from the essay, sure it could have. If consensus was that a subset of the material violated our policies or guidelines, it could have been removed. XfD closers have wide latitude to determine consensus in a discussion and implement that consensus. ArbCom does not. We're here when that consensus-building process fails on a matter of behavior. Further, I'm unconvinced by arguments that this case is about JzG's behavior in writing the content, not the content itself. The same could be said about any piece of content on Misplaced Pages. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 14:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
* Like Rob, I want to see what specific administrative action JzG took or declined to take that violates ADMINCOND or ADMINACCT. MFD seemed to function as it’s supposed to function. IDONTLIKEIT is not a suitable reason to bring it to us. As Brad notes, we are not the MFD Appeals Court anymore. Community consensus is to leave the page as it is. What is broken here that we have to fix? <span style="color: #9932CC">]<sup>]</sup></span> 06:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
** '''Decline''' This is not Arbcom's role. <span style="color: #9932CC">]<sup>]</sup></span> 14:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
*I'm struggling to see where ArbCom fits into this - the page in question sits squarely under "content", even if it's not in mainspace. The only question that I see which which could be an area that Arbcom fits is ], though I have not seen any actions which fall into that area and I do not believe Arbcom should be invoking before actions are taken, or ]. Since the community has not decided the page should be deleted, I struggle to see that Arbcom should over-rule that by saying that JzG has violated ADMINCOND by creating it - the bar for deletion of a single article should be lower that the bar for individual sanctions, one can be sitting at odds with the community on a single issue, the other should be either a pattern or egregious behaviour. Overall, unless something else is brought up, '''Decline''' from me. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 08:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

*'''Decline''' - as has been said above, we aren't a super DRV and the filer states this is not a request for a desysop. The page makes JzG more accountable for any Admin actions he might take, which isn't a bad thing. I don't see an appropriate role for us here. ] ] 12:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' It's not ArbCom's role to override the community's decisions. I don't see JzG stepping into an area into question using his admin roles, in fact he has stated he would voluntary step AWAY from those areas. ] (]) 12:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''. The page was taken through the wringer at MfD and ultimately found there was no consensus to delete. We're not going to re-run or overturn the discussion. I don't see an admin action that crosses the line here. As my colleagues have mentioned, JzG has specifically stated he doesn't wish to admin in the American Politics area in any case, so I don't believe that such a line-crossing is likely to occur. Overall, there's nothing for us here at this point. &spades;]&spades; ] 19:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''. As above, this is not MfD Round 2. In general, if the community has extensively discussed something and decided ''not'' to take action, it's very unlikely I'll be in favor of arbcom stepping in to change that result. Doing nothing is a good default reaction to things that aren't demonstrably causing problems, and this request doesn't make the case that it reaches that level. ] (]) 06:00, 19 October 2018 (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.