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 23:02, 17 September 2009 view sourceCool Hand Luke (talk | contribs)14,522 edits →Arbitrator votes and comments: Support← Previous edit Revision as of 23:07, 17 September 2009 view source Casliber (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators200,912 edits yesNext edit →
Line 101: Line 101:
:#Support the motion. ]] 22:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC) :#Support the motion. ]] 22:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:# Support, and I strongly endorse the bit about this matter not being prejudiced. We may discover that it is a fabrication. We can only determine an appropriate course by allowing the parties to be confronted with the evidence against them&mdash;and this isn't suited for a public forum. On-wiki evidence from the community would also be helpful in corroborating or disproving the existence of misconduct. ] '']'' 23:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC) :# Support, and I strongly endorse the bit about this matter not being prejudiced. We may discover that it is a fabrication. We can only determine an appropriate course by allowing the parties to be confronted with the evidence against them&mdash;and this isn't suited for a public forum. On-wiki evidence from the community would also be helpful in corroborating or disproving the existence of misconduct. ] '']'' 23:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:# Support - per preceding. ] (] '''·''' ]) 23:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


:'''Oppose''': :'''Oppose''':

Revision as of 23:07, 17 September 2009

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Dr90s BLP-POV violations, incivility, sockpuppetry   17 September 2009 {{{votes}}}
Eastern European mailing list Motions 17 September 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.


Dr90s BLP-POV violations, incivility, sockpuppetry

Initiated by Thibbs (talk) at 20:30, 17 September 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 Thibbs

This makes the 7th time I will have filed a report on this user, a well-known sockpuppeteer with a history for BLP-vandalism and incivility. Filing reports takes me a lot of time and energy and in this case I am looking to streamline the process so that I can spend less time filing reports and more time editing. As a sockpuppet case, the natural place for me to post is at SPI. I am generally quite pleased with the way the SPI reports have gone, however I find myself explaining the same story over and over and over again to new administrators who are not as familiar with the history of this puppetmaster as I am.

I have twice sought and was granted designated administrators who I could go to in order to streamline the process, however at the moment one has retired (User:Hermione1980), and the other is on a 3+ month WikiBreak (User:Tanthalas39).

The reason I am filing this report is to request an official ArbCom-signed topic ban or total ban on Dr90s and his sockpuppets. If this motion is granted, I will have an additional reason (i.e. "Evasion of bans or other remedies issued by the arbitration committee (closed cases only)") to request that official action be taken at SPI. This will streamline the process for me and improve the ability of the community to react to further SOCK violations by this indefatigable vandal. -Thibbs (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Nathan

I don't think this really requires an arbitration case; the sockmaster is clearly not welcome at Misplaced Pages, and de facto banned even if no official sanction is on record. Thibbs has established a record of finding groups of sockpuppets in this area, and I think the clerks at SPI (of which I am one) would be willing to consider his checkuser requests with somewhat less exhaustive evidence than he has been posting. We do review the case archives, and a whole history isn't necessary for each new report.

If you like, you can ping me on my talkpage if you find a report isn't being processed quickly enough - but we are usually pretty good at keeping up. Nathan 22:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

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 (0/0/0/1)

  • I appreciate the good faith and frustration of the filing party. However, I think it is clear at this point that the sockmaster in question is community-banned and that any additional socks should also be banned, especially if they continue to edit in the same unacceptable fashions that led to the ban in the first place. The structure of the WP:SSI pages has become rather more complex than it used to be, which I hope is not deterring valid reports of serious problems, but opening an arbitration case just to expedite the paperwork there should hopefully not be necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Eastern European mailing list

Motion to open a case

The Arbitration Committee is aware from multiple sources of the situation and allegations discussed in this thread on the incidents noticeboard. Although no formal request for arbitration has yet been filed, several editors have called for this situation to be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee, and it is clear that no form of dispute resolution short of arbitration is likely to resolve the dispute.

I move that, on the committee's own motion, an arbitration case be opened in this matter.

Evidence should be presented within one week after opening of the case. For purposes of initial presentation of evidence, the case may include all issues reasonably arising from this situation. At a later date, the Arbitration Committee may further clarify the scope of the case and what issues are comprised within it.

Editors are expected to observe appropriate decorum on the case pages and in any other discussion of this incident.

Editors are instructed to refrain from disclosing on-wiki the name or other identifying information concerning any editor who does not edit under or disclose on-wiki his or her real-world identity. Any evidence that would have the potential effect of making such a disclosure shall not be posted on-wiki, but shall be e-mailed to the Arbitration Committee. The committee will take appropriate steps to ensure that no editor is sanctioned based on private evidence without an appropriate opportunity to respond to such evidence, while also seeking to ensure that editors' identifying information is not unnecessarily disclosed.

All editors, whether or not they are potential parties to the case, are strongly urged to exercise consideration and discretion in dealing both on- and off-wiki with all aspects of this highly sensitive situation. Any behavior that would unnecessarily inflame or widen the dispute should be avoided.

This motion is adopted in the interests of expediting consideration of this matter. Neither this motion nor any other action taken today by the Arbitration Committee reflects any predetermination of the merits of the case.

The 24-hour waiting period before opening a case is waived.

The Clerk will give notice of this motion, when adopted, to all editors mentioned in the thread cited above and post notice on the appropriate noticeboards.

Proceed accordingly.

Motion offered by Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Editor statements

The Arbitration Committee is aware of the comments already made in the ANI thread linked to above. Comments already made there need not be repeated here for the arbitrators to be aware of them. Editor comments relating to the appropriateness of proceeding with an arbitration case are welcome in this section; they should be as concise as possible, bearing in mind that if the motion is adopted, evidence, talk, and workshop pages will be created for the more complete explanation of each participant's position. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by (user 1)

Statement by (user 2)

Clerk notes

Question: The notes below are written as though this is a full motion; for the purposes of knowing when to open the case, are we looking for a majority as suggested below or the usual net four? Hersfold 22:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(not clerk or arb, clerk should move if need be) I'm not sure if a case can be opened by motion (if it can, it makes the whole net 4 rule moot), but it can probably fixed by interpreting all aye votes as accept votes as well as votes in favor of the motion's conditions and modifications on the case, and any nay votes as no to both, unless the arbitrator indicates otherwise.--Tznkai (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator votes and comments

On a motion, a majority of all the active, non-recused arbitrators is required for adoption. There are currently 10 arbitrators listed as active, so a majority is 6. If any arbitrator listed as inactive votes on this motion, he or she shall be moved to active for purposes of this case and the majority adjusted accordingly.
Support:
  1. As proposer. This situation requires our expedited attention and under the particular circumstances it is appropriate for us to proceed nostra sponte rather than wait for a formal case to be filed. I would like to reemphasize that nothing in this motion, or any other action taken today, reflects a predetermination of any aspect of the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  2. Support the motion. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  3. Support, and I strongly endorse the bit about this matter not being prejudiced. We may discover that it is a fabrication. We can only determine an appropriate course by allowing the parties to be confronted with the evidence against them—and this isn't suited for a public forum. On-wiki evidence from the community would also be helpful in corroborating or disproving the existence of misconduct. Cool Hand Luke 23:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  4. Support - per preceding. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain: