Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:07, 26 January 2007

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

• WP:RFAR
• WP:A/R
• WP:ARB/R
• WP:ARBREQ

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Current requests

Nathanrdotcom

Initiated by Doc at 00:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Nathanrdotcom (talk · contribs)

Doc glasgow (talk · contribs) (as little as possible)

Various others

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Posted on AN and to Nathanrdotcom's talk page

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Not appropriate

Statement by User:Doc glasgow

Nathanrdotcom was blocked several months ago following an 'incident'. Until recently he has been considered 'banned by the community'. Today that block was lifted, as it was felt by one admin now unjustified. (I make no criticism of that admin). He has now been reblocked pending a decision. And some discussion has begun on AN.

I take no view on what the outcome should be. And I would trust the community to get it right. However, the community could only make that decision by open discussion on wiki. Given the nature of this issue, the off-wiki comment, and the fact that the reputation and real lives of several individuals (including minors) are at stake, an open discussion with full evidence examined seems to be very ill-advised. (Further, tempers may get heated.) I am thus urging arbcom to take this case, invite all interested parties to submit e-mail evidence and comment, discuss it on the arbcom closed channels and advise the community on what action should be taken. This is what we elected a committee to do, things that are best not handled by us. I take no view on the right decision, and indeed would not participate in this case, if accepted. Please take this case, if you don't you doom the community to discuss this openly, and that is bad for wikipedia and most unfair on various others. It will not be enough to say that this is a community ban and that it should hold. If it is a community ban, then it will always be possible for someone to re-open the discussion. If this user is to remain banned, that would better be an arbcom ban. --Doc 00:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Nathanrdotcom block log . His userpage and talk was deleted and protected by me after the 'incident' --Doc 00:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by ElC

I reimposed NDC's block and protected his userspace due to the highly sensitive nature of the dispute. I, as well, favour a closed proceeding. El_C 00:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Beno1000

Also in favor of closed proceeding; willing to make private comment to arbcom. Beno1000 01:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)

WLU–Mystar

Initiated by WLU at 14:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• WLU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mystar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Posted notification on Mystar's talk page here. I have also sent an e-mail to him to alert him away from wikipedia, at this address: xxxxxx@chartermi.net. Note the response to my notification.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

1. Informal mediation. Other users have tried to moderate between us (though also other editors), notably Paul Willocx, Runch, Figma.
2. Discussion with third parties. I had an extensive e-mail discussion with User:Armedblowfish; unfortunately she has not contributed since November and my e-mail has gone unanswered to date, and may be unavailable to confirm this.
3. Failed mediation request, also note Mystar's comment regarding the failure of the request.
4. Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-10 Dispute between WLU and Mystar

Disputes between myself and Mystar are acrimonious and disruptive to pages we are involved in.

Statement by WLU

As I moved away from the Terry Goodkind page, where I first started editing, Mystar has been monitoring my edits and I believe his actions constitute harassment. I have made it clear to Mystar why I am frustrated with his edits. Here is a less civil one where I document everything he's done up to that date that irritated me.

The list below is representative, but not exhaustive. A complete a list is found here.

Actions include:

Editing comments on talk pages

• One, Mystar pastes a reply in the middle of a weblink supporting my edit.

Commenting on users, not content

• One, against other user, this is also an example of wikistalking
• Two

Personal attacks/incivility (has been warned before, and other users are reluctant enter dialogue with him. Note Mystar's reply).

Personal attacks/incivility against me

• One
• Two, also threatening
• Three, note my reply
• Four, also refers to me as a girl after I made my gender clear here

Personal attack/incivility against other users

• One, changes 'enrage' to 'annoy' in next edit
• Two

Wikistalking

• Wars and Light and Shadow
• Suggestion box (stalking another user)
• Eccentric contraction
• Concentric contraction
• Barbara Hambly
• Heroes Die
• Uncaria tomentosa
• Lupus erythematosus
• There is also the edit in the section "Commenting on users, not content", above and abuse of policy, and sockpuppeting below.

Meatpuppeting

• Here

Sockpuppeting

• Here, admits to it here (skipping one edit he made). Since Mystar was not logged in he would have to check my contributions making this another example of wikistalking.

Abuse of policy

• Deletion - page created only 12 hours previously, also wikistalking
• Peer review
  • Cat's Claw (as peer review above)
  • Barbara Hambly (as peer review above)

See also

• Uninvolved user on Mystar's behaviour
• This comment by Mystar is in reference to this edit by me adding a summary/intro sentence.

I have been uncivil as well. Recently I posted this (though there are others) after months of repeated warnings, comments and attempts at discussion without any change in his behaviour.

I don't really care if Mystar continues to add to wikipedia or not, and his straight contributions of content can be good, but I am really, really sick of continuously being confronted by his bellicose manner and tendentious edits.

Statement by Mystar

I'm working on a response to these allegations. I should be able to post a response by Friday at the latest Mystar

Statement by NeoFreak

It is with alot of caution that I make a statment here about this arbitration request. I am involved in a peripheral sense and I am cited in the statements by WLU and will no doubt also be cited by Mystar when he is ready to make his own statement. To be honest and upfront I am often in conflict with Mystar and our "relationship" has been very rocky. I have no such problems with WLU and we are on good terms. I refuse to take sides though as both people in this case are good editors when their (and my own) inclination to fight or bicker is overcome.

From what I can gather from more intimate and off-wiki interaction Mystar is a very good person and has no malicous or vandalistic intent here. He is an intelligent and attentive man. The issue is that he is a very passonite person and he is very quick to "fight" when he perceives a threat to his interests. The majority off the conflict between Mystar and other editors, such as WLU, starts on the Terry Goodkind article and the article for his most well known work, The Sword of Truth. Mystar is a close personal friend of Terry Goodkind (and both of them are Ayn Rand adherents, a place where you will see additoinal cites for this arbitration), he is the head of Terry Goodkind's fanclub, the administrator of his online dealings, to include Terrry Goodkind's Myspace account, and his "officially sanctioned" fansite . He has made it clear many times here on wikipedia that he is Terry Goodkin's "online representative" and speaks for the author here. While he has no legal grounds for represetation of the author as he is not his agent we had some article ownership disputes for sometime.

By Mystar's own admission he felt personally attacked and also felt that his friend and one of his favorite authors was being systematically smeared on the internet and took some overly personal and aggressive actions against those that he felt responsible. While I have in fact seen some off-wiki disscussion about "trashing Goodkind's page" on wikpedia and some general "bash Goodkind" fests on message boards I was never witness to the deep conspiracy in wikipedia to libel and defame Terry Goodkind that Mystar thought to have existed. Mystar would often accuse other editors of bad faith, being sock puppets and working to "destroy Goodkind" because "they didn't like his political opinions" or "his success".

I suppose that I'm trying to argue that Mystar is not a destructive force in wikipedia and although he can be disruptive he is a good person that has taken things beyond the accptable boundaries of wikipedia, but only when he thought he was "under attack". I think with a change in tone and a readjustment of what it means to be an editor (a correction of paradigm) that nobody involved here would be untenable. NeoFreak 21:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

• Accept. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Kirill Lokshin 23:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 12:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.

Request for clarification on review of Carnildo's promotion

• I may be missing the obvious, but could the Committee please point to where the pledged review of Carnildo's promotion is stored, probably back in November? I'm sure he would like to put that behind him and I have not seen where the green light was given. -- nae'blis 20:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for appeal of precedent from LaRouche case

These sections from the "Lyndon LaRouche" arbcom decision strike me as vaguely worded, but have been subsequently interpreted to represent a general ban on the use of Executive Intelligence Review, Fidelio, and other publications associated with LaRouche as sources for Misplaced Pages articles. I believe that this interpretation is overbroad (see Jimbo's comment) and has had unintended negative effects on the project (see examples.)

I would like to propose the following: that the policy of a "blanket ban" on cites from LaRouche publications be repealed, and replaced with a warning that such cites are simply subject to the policies laid out in WP:RS. The Misplaced Pages policy is clear and ought to be sufficient to prevent abuses.

It is my contention that there will be instances where it is in fact appropriate to cite LaRouche publications, particularly Executive Intelligence Review, which has been in publication for over 30 years and has been called "one of the best private intelligence services in the world" by Norman Bailey, a former senior staffer of the National Security Council. There may be instances where analysis from EIR may be deemed to be OR, but there is a wealth of information, for example in interviews of prominent persons that regularly appear in EIR, that should not be considered OR.--Tsunami Butler 11:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this being treated as a blanket ban? My reading is that the limitation on use of LaRouche-based sources only applies to Wikipedians who are supporters of LaRouche. If there are neutral editors with no connection to LaRouche who believe that these are the best available sources in any particular case, they may add them, unless there is some other decision or clarification of which I am not aware. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the examples I am citing, plus the answers I received in my earlier clarification request, you will see that it is indeed being treated as a blanket ban. The arbcom case in question makes no distinction between a supporter of LaRouche and a non-supporter (the "LaRouche 2" case bans two LaRouche supporters from editing LaRouche-related articles.) --Tsunami Butler 23:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Some classes of sources are not presumed unsuitable, such as blogs and forums, but it's only a presumption. Editors can make a case for particular sources in individual instances.

The LaRouche material has several problems. His theories and methods are widely viewed as being fringe so they shouldn't be used as objective sources of information or interpretation for an encyclopedia. Just read the Washington Post article that give the Bailey quotation cited above, "Some Officials Find Intelligence Network 'Useful'". Bailey himself sued LaRouche for libel and received a cash settlement and a correction. Authors in the movement often write on obscure topics with novel viewpoints, so the volume of their material, and their availability on the web, could significantly impact Misplaced Pages if widely used for sources. Readers and editors unfamiliar with LaRouche's theories may not realize that an article they're reading is based on his views of the topic. Further, the LaRouche movement editors have a problematic history at Misplaced Pages. The main editor, Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs), was found to have been expertly controlling several sockpuppets while engaging in edit wars over plagiarized material and LaRouche theories. It appears likely that he is still editing despite his one-year ban. There now are several single purpose accounts devoted to LaRouche articles, so it seems as if there are more editors promoting LaRouche's POV than ever.

Material like this:, just doesn't belong as a source. On the other hand a user made a good case for linking to some animated geometry diagrams on a LaRouche site, and so we kept it. However the 40-page LaRouche-written article that they illustrate is characteristic of his material and of why we avoid him as a source. LaRouche sources are still in the articles that use them to source LaRouche opinions or statements, for example, Enéas Carneiro and October surprise conspiracy. So it's not a blanket ban.

I've recently removed dozens of inappropriate LaRouche sources from Misplaced Pages articles, links that appear to have been added within the last year. That's the action which has precipitated this appeal. The ArbCom's ruling on LaRouche sources exists to prevent fringe theories pushed by aggressive editors from skewing Misplaced Pages articles. It's needed now just as much as when it was adopted. -Will Beback · † · 09:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The ruling here is clear. Sources that originate with LaRouche may not be used in any articles except those associated with the LaRouche movement. Jimbo's clarification backs up Will's point that LaRouche sources are not reliable in the ordinary sense, and Jimbo further says that evaluating such sources is a difficult job "for serious editors to undertake thoughtfully." Will appears to have done that. Furthermore, Uninvited's comment that neutral editors may add LaRouche sources if they are appropriate both fits in with Jimbo's remarks and excludes Tsunami Butler. So the current status quo is about right, as far as I can tell. Thatcher131 13:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I disagree with many assertions made by Will Beback and Thatcher131, plus assertions that I may anticipate will be made by Fred Bauder, based on my earlier clarification request. Rather than responding point-by-point to those assertions here, I am asking the ArbCom to open a formal appeal on this matter so that it may be discussed in depth. --Tsunami Butler 15:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration cases should not be reopened or revisited without clear and compelling issues. Is there a case where these sources are not being allowed? If so, they shouldn't be re-removed without discussion on the talk page - consensus is what powers Misplaced Pages. If one of the banned users is adding them, then an appeal to Arbitration Enforcement should be made. The Administrator' Noticeboard may be a good way to get a range of opinions on the issue. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions clarification

The final decision notes that "It is the responsibility of the administrators and other responsible parties to close extended policy discussions they are involved in."

1. What is a "responsible party?"
2. What sort of expectation is it to close an "extended policy discussion?" At what point is it "extended," and at what stage is it okay to throw in the towel? At an arbitrary moment or simply when the discussion becomes "disruptive?"

Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

An established and respected user who is not an administrator could close a discussion. An extended policy discussion is one in which most aspects of the question has been discussed, alternatives considered, in short, a full discussion. Good judgement is needed to determine when consensus has been reached or when it is obvious there is no consensus. When the discussion becomes disruptive, more heat than light, it is probably past time to close the discussion and declare a result. Fred Bauder 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

So nothing really specific, per se? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The subject does not lend itself to bright line rules. The question is whether the question has been fully discussed and a decision reached. Fred Bauder 01:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeff got me thinking, and.. that's not really useful. It's basically saying "If you think you're right then say so and tell everyone to shut up". Won't everyone think they're right in a discussion/dispute/etc? If the situation is reasonably clear one way or the other then we usually don't have to resort to something like this to end it. The situations this is supposed to be helpful in are usually too unclear to actually use this. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions involved a matter where there was a consensus, but no closing. Based on lack of closing, an opposition party engaged in move warring. That was the problem we were trying to address. Fred Bauder 03:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's one way to look at it, but the solution offered still isn't helpful. Nothing personal. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• As Fred Bauder said, the gauging of consensus is not something that lends itself well to hard line rules. That is why we have a special permission for users that guage consensus in promotions - bureaucrats (they do other things, too, but that's why the permission was created IIRC). It's a tricky business, but not unsurmountable. When in doubt, further discussion can never hurt. Requests for third (or hundredth) opinions can be useful. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ned, in this situation the result was "reasonably clear" (80% supermajority over a relatively minor issue) but a vocal minority engaged in move warring and disruption. We all agree to operate on consensus, and in most cases policy discussions sort of peter out when the parties get bored, or realize they are losing, and find other things to do, leaving the active particpants to implement the consensus result. Here there was a small but very vocal minority that did not accept the result, possibly because the people who were telling them that they lost were the people they had been arguing with all along, and possibly because there is no "official" way to close a policy discussion. (Unlike XfD, where there is a clear procedure for ending the discussion, announcing the result, and implementing it.) The arbitration remedy authorizes the participants in a debate to close it when consensus is demonstrably achieved, and announce and implement the result. (Although, with all due respect to Fred and the other arbitrators, I think it should have said "uninvolved" editors or admins, and I would hope that in future situations, a majority faced with a vocal and upset minority would seek outside help.) Thatcher131 00:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

AMA advocates' status in cases

Surely some here know me for being an AMA advocate that from time to time appears in the halls of ArbCom defending people. This time, I have a doubt. What status have formal or informal advocate during a case? Are we "parties" or just "others"? If we are "parties", then, can we make motions, endorse them, object, request in the workshop or just comment as an uninvolved user? My opinion is that advocates should be considered a party, as we're involved (indirectly, yes) in the case... but, in the other hand, no arbitrator has ever thought on ruling on an advocate... It's quite confusing to me and that's why I request this clarification. Thanks in advance! --Neigel von Teighen 19:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Any user may be an informal advocate, but an AMA advocate speaks for the user they represent. They are not a party but may speak for the party they represent. In the past no advocate has effectively represented a user, but the role is open. Great care should be taken to make only motions which make sense to the arbitrators. Focus on adequately presenting relevant evidence in a useable form and on framing proposals in terms of core Misplaced Pages policies. Fred Bauder 02:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: A rule that a party's advocate in a mediation automatically becomes a party to an ensuing arbitration case might inadvertently discourage editors from taking on the role of advocate. Hopefully, it is a rare situation in which an advocate's own conduct becomes the focus of inquiry by ArbCom, so I don't think formal "party" status is necessary. A sensible rule would be that advocates have the same standing as any other editor to present evidence, make workshop proposals, etc., but that of course when an advocate is commenting in the capacity of advocate, it's good practice to note that fact. When an ArbCom case is filed, providing courtesy notification to anyone who was acting as an advocate is also an appropriate thing to do. Newyorkbrad 19:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment • As an advocate myself, I would say that we are just another editor, and should be treated as such. There should be no preferential or special treatment given, and their status as a party should be judged on the merits, or lack thereof, of their actions, and the length of their involvement. If they are not directly involved in the dispute, other than by acting as an advocate, than I would be compelled to think that they would not be a party. After all, we do not bring the previous mediator on a case into a case simply because they were the mediator in the prior attempt at dispute resolution. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'd suggest doing something like putting the comment in the party section and then signing it, say, "NvT as advocate for RealParty". Unless acting directly as advocate -- i.e., speaking for them -- then you're just another editor with a hopefully useful comment. I think ArbCom can figure out the difference between the real parties and the advocates and is unlikely to include the advocates in any remedies... --jpgordon 19:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Well, that's what I myself do: add "User: Imaglang (aka Neigel von Teighen) AMA advocate for User" in the party list and then adding a diff to anything that certifies me as advocate. What I expect from ArbCom is a little guideline on what to do, not a policy. Something we can rely on when an advocate (formal or informal) has doubts on what to do. That's it what we need. --Neigel von Teighen 09:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment • I would assume an Advocate is not a party, but an advocate for a party. In a given case were an Advocate represents a party, and performs actions as any other editor, it may raise COI issues. nobs 22:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Neigel asks "can we make motions, endorse them, object, request in the workshop". It seems to me the answer is "yes, of course; anyone can do all that stuff, party to the case or not". As far as I can see, absolutely nothing hinges on whether advocates are considered parties. What am I missing here? PurplePlatypus 05:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Nobs has hit the point that led me to make this request. There can be COI problems like this: User X makes a motion and Advocate endorses it, counting as two "moves" for the same party in a same "turn"... (proposing-endorsing) I don't know if I'm clear enough... It turns me to be rather unfair in some way... although anyone could go and request an advocate too. Simply put, what I request is a little official guideline written by ArbCom so no doubt nor conflict arrive... Maybe am I being too silly? If so, tell me and withdraw this. --Neigel von Teighen 17:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Advocates have no formal status during arbitration (or, stated another way - they are the same as everybody else). In the past, they have shown themselves clearly and conclusively to be impediments to the arbitration process. In cannot think of a single case they have helped in any way. In short, the AMA is useless. Raul654 18:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I really know we're an impediment, but we try to do the best we can, including myself. And have an idea: please send me a feedback on my work on the ongoing Starwood case after its closure and tell me how I did it and what shall I improve or if I was really useless? Honestly, it can be a good start! --Neigel von Teighen 19:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't speak to the Starwood case (which I haven't yet looked at), but in all past cases, the AMA advocates' arguments have amounted to nothing but pettifoggery. If you wish for things to go different, then - and I say this admittedly without looking at what you have been doing there - I strongly suggest you advocate for the person are representing, and avoid resorting to the AMA's standard toolbox of dilatory tactics. Raul654 21:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Personally, I feel that Advocates could be of use, but currently and in the past they have not been. The problem is that when someone makes an argument on one person's behalf and it is struck down, they tend to take it as a slight against them. I feel that it is important that AMA advocates hold themselves to a certain decorum when working in a case. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This is why we thought in our last AMA meeting to do gather arbitrators with our Coordinator and Deputies to talk about these things... Well, in summary, the answer to my request is: "Advocates are the same as anyother editor in the case". Have I undertood it well? If so, then, we can say this request is closed, wouldn't be? --Neigel von Teighen 11:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• I honestly must say that I find myself taken aback by comments such as "In short, the AMA is useless," but I cannot deny that historically such observations have been true. In the past, members of the AMA were causing havoc by bringing cases that were far too young in the WP:DR process to MedCom and ArbCom. This, in turn, was mostly due to two things: 1) Advocates who did not have enough direction or practical experience and 2) the fact that the AMA was practically inactive and running "on its own" without any sort of supervision or direction. People were "signing up" with no communication between members and no idea of what to do, the request system was horrific, and the previous Coordinator had resigned months earlier with no acknowledgment from the Association. (This is the state I found it in when I joined).
  
  Recently, with many Advocate efforts, there has been a resurgence in membership, a reorganization of our structure and and influx of zeal to help and because of that the AMA is back on its feet. We've kept the same goal that we initially held (helping disputes on Misplaced Pages) yet have a very different way of going about things. As a result we have already relieved ArbCom of dozens of cases and saved many hours of precious time by reducing the escalation of conflicts as they arise and are referred to us.
  
  Things are working well, but they are far from perfect yet, and I feel that the next logical step is for the AMA to foster a closer, functional, and working relationship with ArbCom in order for our processes to be more efficient, and in the end, put less strain on WP:DR. If we end up doing "our job" properly, even fewer cases will rise to the level of Arbitration, and those that do should be properly researched, formed and submitted. What my wishes are in discussing this would be to see that there is some cooperation between us to further these goals and make Misplaced Pages a better place.
  
  -- (AMA Coordinator) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 03:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Archives

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (extremely sparse, selective, and unofficial)

• Misplaced Pages arbitration
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee