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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:23, 11 August 2009 view sourceDrew R. Smith (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,859 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 04:33, 11 August 2009 view source Drew R. Smith (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,859 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 8: Line 8:
=== Involved parties === === Involved parties ===
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> <!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|username1}}, ''filing party'' *{{userlinks|Drew R. Smith}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|username2}} *{{userlinks|Javert}}
*{{userlinks|username3}} *{{userlinks|Rjd0060}}
*{{userlinks|username4}} *{{userlinks|Jimbo Wales}}
*{{userlinks|Prodego}}<small>as an unblocking admin</small>
<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. --> <!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->


;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request ;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. --> <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
<small>User's have not been notified yet. I am doing that next. However, as I am not allowed to contact Jimbo, could someone else please do it for me?</small>
*Diff. 1
*Diff. 2


;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->
*Link 1
*Link 2
=== Statement by {Party 1} === === Statement by {Party 1} ===
Attempted to engage ] in conversation about founder/co-founder issue. I was neither uncivil, nor was I breaking any policies. Jimbo removed the section. I asked a new question, and ] removed it. This is in direct confict with our rules against removal of content which roughly state ''Removal of content is prohibited except on ones own userpage''. Since I posted nothing on Javerts userpage, and therefore Javert had no right to remove it, I added it back. ] removed it once again. I added it back once again. Rjd0060 then blocked me. I was subsequentlly unblocked by ] under the proviso that I not bother Jimbo anymore.


My complaint is two-fold.
1) Javert and Rjd0060 were wrong to remove my questions from Jimbos talk page. That is for Jimbo, and Jimbo alone to do.
2) Jimbo Wales is not above our rules. According to ] Userpages are subject to ] which states that promoting propagand is not allowed. However, Jimbo Wales has been passing himself off as the sole founder of Misplaced Pages for ages now, with no reproach.
=== Statement by {Party 2} === === Statement by {Party 2} ===


Line 34: Line 34:
=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) === === Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) ===
* *

== 194x144x90x118 == == 194x144x90x118 ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 05:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC) '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 05:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:33, 11 August 2009

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
<Insert the case name>   11 August 2009 {{{votes}}}
194x144x90x118   8 August 2009 {{{votes}}}
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.

<Insert the case name>-Requests_for_arbitration-2009-08-11T04:23:00.000Z">

Initiated by Drew Smith What I've done at 04:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)"> ">

Involved parties">

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

User's have not been notified yet. I am doing that next. However, as I am not allowed to contact Jimbo, could someone else please do it for me?

Statement by {Party 1}">

Attempted to engage User:Jimbo Wales in conversation about founder/co-founder issue. I was neither uncivil, nor was I breaking any policies. Jimbo removed the section. I asked a new question, and User:Javert removed it. This is in direct confict with our rules against removal of content which roughly state Removal of content is prohibited except on ones own userpage. Since I posted nothing on Javerts userpage, and therefore Javert had no right to remove it, I added it back. User:Rjd0060 removed it once again. I added it back once again. Rjd0060 then blocked me. I was subsequentlly unblocked by User:Prodego under the proviso that I not bother Jimbo anymore.

My complaint is two-fold. 1) Javert and Rjd0060 were wrong to remove my questions from Jimbos talk page. That is for Jimbo, and Jimbo alone to do. 2) Jimbo Wales is not above our rules. According to WP:UP#NOT Userpages are subject to WP:SOAP which states that promoting propagand is not allowed. However, Jimbo Wales has been passing himself off as the sole founder of Misplaced Pages for ages now, with no reproach.

Statement by {Party 2}">

Statement by {Party 3}">

Clerk notes">

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

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

194x144x90x118

Initiated by Erik9 (talk) at 05:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Erik9

194x144x90x118 has a considerable history of personal attacks, edit warring, and generally uncooperative and belligerent behavior, as detailed in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/194x144x90x118 - see and as characteristic examples of this editor's discourse. Despite the concerns expressed at the RFC, this user has engaged in further edit warring against everyone else editing Dreamhost , and, when warned regarding this behavior, responded with the following terse comment: "stuff it.". This editor has also expressly "rejected" a request that he edit in a manner consistent with consensus, and has characterized an editor requesting that he moderate his behavior as "act like some sort of a barbarian" . Since no administrators have been willing to terminate 194x144x90x118's disruption, I am requesting that the Arbitration Committee resolve the situation. Erik9 (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sjakkalle

Although I am not listed as a party, I urge the ArbCom to accept this case, and intend to submit evidence to the case if accepted. My experience with 194x144x90x118 is that he is argumentative and his edits are unconstructive. A large percentage of his activity consists of edit-warring and personal attacks on the Bobby Fischer and related chess articles. The user conduct RFC has not led to any improvement, to the contrary, he dived in, guns blazing, into a third battle in order to push a pro-Icelandic nationalist agenda, mostly on the European Union article, first by these soapbox postings , then by fighting to introduce a "criticism" section to the EU article, even trying to change the EU/FAQ page in order to pave the way for a criticism section, and this. 194x144x90x118 has done nothing to address his behavior, whenever he has been challenged on it he instead complains about the behavior of User:Scjessey and others (see his response on the RFC for an example). While I can tolerate some argumentativeness from an editor who is clearly here to contribute in good faith to articles, my feeling is that 194x144x90x118 is using Misplaced Pages as a battleground in order to cause other editors distress or push a personal or political agenda. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by PhilKnight

The Request for Comment has highlighted there are concerns about 194x144x90x118's conduct in regard to other articles, not just Dreamhost. I appreciate the community probably could handle this, however given the problems are over several unrelated pages, the more structured approach of the ArbCom process would probably be preferable. PhilKnight (talk) 10:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Scjessey

I am unfamiliar with 194's activities outside the realm of the DreamHost article; however, I completely agree that other forms of dispute resolution concerning this user have been unsuccessful. 194 continues to be a largely unproductive contributor, with most edits being confined to obstructionist article reversions and dismissive, argumentative comments in talk page discourse. Should the case be accepted, I am able to submit evidence in the form of an annotated, diff-based summary of 194's DreamHost-related activities that will illustrate the problem. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to Jehochman
The COI allegations were already handled at WP:COIN, if you recall. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Response to Flyingpenguin1
The rejected case referred to activities surrounding a specific article, whereas this request involves the activities of a specific editor across a group of articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

I've gone the extra mile to assume good faith of 194. That's not working. Can anybody give a reason not to indef them for disruptive editing? If there is no administrator wanting to arbitrate this, let's place a community ban and be done with the matter. Jehochman 13:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

To Carcharoth: there have been allegations of COI editing on DreamHost. These matters can be easily handled via WP:COIN. They hardly require arbitration. Jehochman 17:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Heh, the arbitration business is slow these days. The committee wants something to do. Very well. Have at it. Jehochman 13:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Flyingpenguin1

ArbCom already rejected this once...

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

I pretty much said everything relevant the last time around.

Response to Carcharoth
Of course. I was well aware when I filed the DreamHost case that I was putting myself under as much scrutiny as Judas and 194x, and I don't expect that has changed here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by GTBacchus

My involvement in this case is minimal. I warned User:194x144x90x118 for personal attacks back in June . I said at the time that, were he the target of such remarks, we would be equally quick to warn or block his attacker as necessary. The next month, he posted a thread to my talk page (User talk:GTBacchus#The fischer talkpage) asking that I make good on that assurance. His initial post was unclear, but then he pointed to remarks made by User:Qualle, which I agree were inappropriate. Unfortunately, this happened just about the time that I disappeared for a week-and-a-half, due to offline concerns. Thus, I was slow to get back to him, and have only just now properly replied.

It is my impression that User:194x144x90x118 would do well to consider a change in tactics. It is also my impression that it takes two to tango, and I would encourage review of the actions of all involved editors. I'd hate to see someone "win" a content dispute by getting their opponent(s) "in trouble". I hope that User:194x144x90x118 is willing to change his tune enough to decrease the amount of static he encounters, and thus increase his success here at Misplaced Pages.

Further, I hope that ArbCom will consider not only blatant personal attacks, but also escalatory and combative behavior in general. Ideally, we can teach editors to swim better, and not have to make anyone leave the water. I hope the involved editors are willing to learn a stroke or two. -GTBacchus 18:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/2)

  • Awaiting statement from 194x144x90x118. I would caution (based on what I recall of the DreamHost dispute) that the others named here that are involved in disputes with 194x144x90x118 would also have their conduct examined, and that this might lead to sanctions for more than one party. In other words, reframing this from a particular dispute, to an editor-centred case, widens the scope to other disputes, but doesn't narrow the scope to examining a single editor. Rather, the conduct of all involved parties in relevant unresolved disputes is examined during an arbitration case. One of the problems raised with this sort of approach is that not all the individual disputes may have gone through dispute resolution, and only one editor (194x144x90x118) may have had an RFC on them. But that is part of the judgment needed when trying to balance a case scope with which parts of various disputes warrant arbitration. Thoughts on potential case scope from the parties would be useful. Carcharoth (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Accept As I noted in my last accept comment, there are obvious user conduct issues that need to addressed. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Waiting another day or two for any further statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Accept Per Flo. Last RFAR on this was declined on heavily split vote and the problems are still there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Accept and offer to draft the case. Been a little while since I've done one. Wizardman 21:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Accept -- FayssalF - 13:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)