Revision as of 01:59, 8 September 2009

• 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.

Requests for amendment

Use this section: To request changes to remedies or enforcement provisions, for example to make them stronger or deal with unforeseen problems. To request lifting of an existing Arbitration sanction that is no longer needed (banned users may email the Ban Appeals Subcommittee directly) How to file a request (please use this format!): Go to this request template, and copy the text in the box at the bottom of the page. Click here to edit the amendment subpage, and paste the template immediately below this box and above any other outstanding requests. Using the format provided by the template, try to show exactly what you want amended and state your reasoning for the change in 1000 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. Although it should be kept short, you may add to your statement in future if needed as the word limit is not rigidly enforced. List any other users affected or involved. Sign your statement with ~~~~. If your request will affect or involve other users, you must notify each involved person on their user talk page. Return to your request and provide diffs showing that other involved users have been notified in the section provided for notification. This is not a page for discussion. It may be to your advantage to paste the template into your user space or use an off-line text editor to compose your request before posting it here. The main Requests for arbitration page is not the place to work on rough drafts. Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Requests that do not clearly state the following will be removed by Arbitrators or Clerks without comment: The name of the case to be amended (which should be linked in the request header), The clause(s) to be modified, referenced by number or section title as presented in the Final Decision, The desired modifications to the aforementioned clause(s), and A rationale for the change(s) of no more than 1000 words. Requests from banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Committee. Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are one of those individuals.

Request to amend prior case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong (3)

Case affected

Ryulong arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. (I'll let the clerks interpret what is requested for amendment)

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Amendment 1

• (See below)
• That all decisions that refer to Mythdon by the singular they be reworded to refer to Mythdon as a male.

This includes:

• Findings of fact: "Mythdon's interpretation of policies and guidelines", "Mythdon stance toward the articles"
• Remedies: "Mythdon admonished"

Statement by Mythdon

All other decisions that refer to me refer to me as a male (which I am), while the above decisions just use the singular they. This is inconsistent wording that needs to be addressed to make the decision wordings consistent. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Amendment 2

• "Mythdon restricted and placed under mentorship"
• That the strikeout of the text be replaced with the templates {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, with the heading text being "superseded remedy".

Statement by Mythdon

In Arbitration Cases of today, this format has been used for amended decisions. The conduct probation replaced the mentorship remedy. This will allow for consistency with the other ArbCom cases. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other editor (2)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Amendment 3

• Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
• Details of desired modification

Statement by Mythdon

Statement by other editor (2)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by Mythdon

As with the second amendment request which was made by Ncmvocalist, this will address the inconsistency issues in the formatting of case. I will be drafting my third request in the amendment request in a while. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw this request. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"Mythdon is banned for a period of six months. At the conclusion of the ban period, Mythdon will be on a six-month probationary period, to run under the current restrictions." - What will be done with the conduct probation, if the motion, or a similar motion passes? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Clerk response Its fairly obvious that it will be superseded. Seddσn | 04:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Scrub that last comment, I misread what you wrote, or at least interpreted it a different way to what you actually mean. I presume what you mean is, will it restart or will it simply be carrying out the remainder of what time is left? Is this a correct assessment? Seddσn | 04:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok scrub that, the point has been clarified. It will be reset to six months after the end of the ban. Seddσn | 04:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

...also, if the conduct probation is removed and replaced with a new probation, what will be done with the restrictions that were imposed upon me under the conduct probation that was imposed in July? Will this "conduct probationary period" be the same conduct probation as the current one? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

to run under the current restrictions... Seddσn | 05:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what that means. Can an arbitrator please clarify? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Should the ban motion pass, I'll be wondering whether I'll return at the conclusion of the ban period. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Though this isn't within the Committee's control, I just want to let the Committee know that I also have an account on the Simple English Misplaced Pages. Basically, whether the ban motion passes or not, I'll still have some involvement with Misplaced Pages for the next six month, but the only difference that would be made with the passing is that I won't be at the English version. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is the Committee basically saying that I should take a break with the ban motion? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Hersfold

However, we're still awaiting possible clarification. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Replies to FayssalF / Questions regarding motion

"During that same period, Mythdon will be placed under the same current restrictions. " - So, in other words, the discretionary sanctions imposed under the current conduct probation will end at the conclusion of the period? Would the "new remedies and enforcement" expire at the date in question? While the motion to impose the "new remedies and enforcement" was in progress, you stated that it had everything to do with the conduct probation. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, would this probationary period be the same type of conduct probation that is imposed right now, or will this be a different probation? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What will be the terms of this "conduct probationary period"? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If the current conduct probation is replaced with a new conduct probation (i.e. different terms, etc. ), will "Mythdon will still be restricted from making edits such as unnecessary questions and abusive warnings to users' talk pages." under the current conduct probation still apply? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Following your clarification here, I have to ask this. At the end of the conduct probation, which is it:

1. The discretionary sanctions imposed under the terms of the conduct probation end no later expiration of the probationary period.
2. The discretionary sanctions imposed under the terms of the conduct probation can be of any duration, even if they remain in place after the expiration date.
3. Whether to lift/amend the remaining discretionary sanctions at the end of the probation will be decided by a review by ArbCom.

Though much of these questions are probably a repeat of question #1 in this section ("So, in other words, the discretionary sanctions imposed under the current conduct probation will end at the conclusion of the period?Would the "new remedies and enforcement" expire at the date in question?"), this needs to be clarified. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Steve Crossin

I do not agree with your mentorship suggestion. This very reason the conduct probation was imposed was because I refused mentorship. Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Request for clarification: Ryulong (2), which explains the amendment. After an amendment like that for that reason, I doubt ArbCom would accept your proposal anyway. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

A message to the Arbitration Committee

Before the ban becomes effective, let me say these things.

I have not even made a single attempt to produce a guideline for WikiProject Tokusatsu articles, as advised in "Participants at the WikiProject Tokusatsu", and emphasized in "new remedies and enforcement added by motion". I haven't even considered doing so

I might make further requests for clarification or amendment following the ban, whether it is with respect to the Ryulong case, or any other Arbitration Case (please note that "any other Arbitration Case" would most likely be a case that I would be an involved party). However, I do hope that it doesn't result in future bans like the one that will be imposed soon

If the Committee feels the need to impose the reformatting that I requested before withdrawing the request following statements by MBisanz, etc, I strongly urge it to impose it

I still have no intention of being mentored, though that part was over when the conduct probation was imposed, this is being said in case the Committee has any intention on imposing any mentorships. This is hinted a few hours ago, with one of my previous comments

If the Committee has any intention on lifting "new remedies and enforcement added by motion" at any point in my tenure on Misplaced Pages, please note that if I still feel the same way that I do now, that I would restart my campaign of applying verifiability and reliable sources policies/guidelines, by removing statements inconsistent with those policies and sending articles to AfD to apply such policies. If "Participants at the WikiProject Tokusatsu" were to be lifted alongside "new remedies and enforcement added by motion", and if my topic ban from WikiProject Tokusatsu (imposed by Fritzpoll) is not present, such enforcement would take place on WikiProject Tokusatsu as well

Since I am forbidden from applying verifiability and reliable sources policies and guidelines, for the past few days, I have thought to myself that I would apply other policies/guidelines in Misplaced Pages and start a campaign to apply such policies and guidelines

Just wanted to send a message to the Committee before my six month site ban takes effect. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by MBisanz

Could the Committee please consider an amendment banning Mythdon from making requests more than once a year? This really has gone on long enough. MBisanz 02:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in light of , maybe just a site ban for 6 months would be sufficient. MBisanz 02:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Hersfold

I second MBisanz's motion. This is getting ridiculous, and this request is nothing but pedantry that once again wastes the time of ArbCom and the clerks. Mythdon's behavior here is becoming severely disruptive, and that fact that he is back here again after a clear warning not to return the last time shows he has absolutely no intention of stopping. Mythdon needs to be banned from ArbCom pages at the very least, however I don't believe a site ban would be out of line considering MBisanz's diff above and Mythdon's predilection for similar disruptive by-the-book-ness elsewhere. Hersfold 03:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Mythdon

I believe "to run under the current restrictions" is fairly clear; it means the editing/conduct/whatever restrictions that are currently applying to you as a result of the Arbitration case would be restarted following your ban, to last for six months. Hersfold 05:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel

What they said. This has gone beyond ridiculous. It will be particularly humourous if it gets to the point where all the clerks have commented to express their opinion, and have hence recused, and therefore there'll be no-one left to process the absurd number of amendment and clarification requests he files. Daniel (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Steve Crossin

Normally I wouldn't comment, but with recent interaction wiu Mythdon at the Lapsed Pacifist workshop page, and my talkpage , as well as the repeated amendment requests, that Mythdon may be obsessed with arbitration, or at the very least, he has lost touch with our focus - building an encyclopedia. This happens to all of us now and again, but editors can be offered a spare clue, and get their eye back on the ball. Mythdon seems to have rejected several offers of clue, so a siteban may remedy this. A lot can be learned from a site ban - I know from experience. It seems this motion has already passed, and I note that Mythdon intends to edit at Simple Wikpedia. They are a welcoming community, and I wish Mythdon the best of luck there, but warn him to not repeat his mistakes here. Steve Crossin 00:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

To do a bit of a backflip on above, but being banned is truly awful, it carries a stigma for years, and I liken it to being a caged, muzzled animal in a zoo, with people poking you with sharp sticks. It's horrid. Perhaps an alternative could work? Let's say, a ban for 6 months to a year from RFAR, his current restrictions to last a year. Additionally, he could be placed under a mentor, and have to complete a structured program, to the satisfaction of the mentor, before he can resume normal editing. Perhaps Mythdon could be offered 2 options. A) Compulsory mentorship, ban from rfar and current restrictions, where a violation would result in a siteban of one year, or b) refuse mentorship, 6 mth ban. The mentorship option offers a way of reforming his behaviour issues, where a straight out ban does little but isolate the issues, rather than actively fix them. I'm happy to do this myself, I happen to have a structured mentorship program already built. I feel reform is preferable to simply solitary confinement, which is basically what a ban is. Steve Crossin 00:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Mythdon

Well, to put it plainly - you're a fool to think you don't need mentorship. If you really think that there's nothing wrong with your behaviour, and you intend to file more requests once the below ban expires, then I question as to what purpose a six month ban would serve. What are you going to learn from the ban, or is it simply going to be a time-out period, where things will resume as before after the timeout period is over? Steve Crossin 00:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Recused MBisanz 02:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Recused once more. Hersfold 03:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Recused. Daniel (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

Motions

Motion 1

There are 11 active arbitrators, so a majority is 6.

Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of six months. At the conclusion of the ban period, Mythdon will be on a six-month conduct probationary period, to run under the current restrictions.

Support:

1. Mythdon has exhausted the patience of both the community and committee, this is now needed. Tweak if necessary. Wizardman 04:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
2. Added "conduct" to "probationary period". -- FayssalF - 04:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
3. Clearly not interested in building an encyclopedia. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies 06:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
7. Mythdon, examine the edits you have made in relation to the case, since the case closed, and ask yourself why you kept pushing the boundaries and repeatedly asking for clarifications and amendments when you were told that this was wasting both your time and ours. You were told many times to accept your sanctions and move on and develop other interests. I would still give you the same advice, but to develop interests outside of Misplaced Pages. Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recuse

Arbitrators' discussions

• To clarify for once. The six-month conduct probationary period starts right after the end of the ban (from March 2010 to September 2010). During that same period, Mythdon will be placed under the same current restrictions (details of restrictions can be found at the updated case's page). -- FayssalF - 05:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • What will be the terms of this "conduct probationary period"? --> Nothing would change at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Motion 2 except the period of 1 year which will be superseded and become 6 months starting from March 2010. -- FayssalF - 22:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)