Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:22, 9 July 2012

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

→ Important notes for all contributors to this case This case is highly contentious, and has the ability to devolve very quickly. So, this is a heads up on the procedures we will be using. A) First off, we will be running under a "single warning" system. The clerks, myself and other arbitrators will be monitoring this case. Uncivil comments or accusations that are not backed up with explicit diffs will be removed on sight. Clerks have been given authority to remove such comments and give the commenter a single warning. If such issues happen again after a participant has been warned, the participant will either be barred from further participation in this arbitration case, or the person will be blocked for a period of time at the clerk's discretion. This applies to everyone. That includes the parties, involved onlookers, semi-involved onlookers, and people who wander in randomly (whether it is truly random or not). B) There will be NO speculations allowed. This includes the following: 1) No using the tactic "Well, person A said this somewhere else, and person B is also participates there, so they obviously agree with it." That falls under a finding that we have endorsed less then three months ago: In apparent violation of the "No Personal Attacks" policy, (user) has persistently dwelt on editors' affiliations and has seemingly used the "affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". (Extract from "What is considered to be a personal attack?") 2) No speculation of off-wiki lifestyle, behavior, orientation and/or private life will be allowed. We are not a gossip site, and making such comments during the case has no purpose. We are an encyclopedia, and our editors should be treated accordingly. If users here are violating that principle elsewhere, that information should be noted briefly, factually, and directly in evidence. 3) If your evidence is being posted against one or more editors, you must fully back up your comments with explicit diffs and/or links. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As I've said above, unsupported attacks on other editors will be removed and warnings/sanctions will be issued. If you're not sure whether a statement will fall afoul of these policies, ask a clerk before hand. Don't think it's "better to ask for forgiveness then it is permission". It's not. These rules will apply on all case-related pages, which explicitly include talk pages. We will be using the just-ratified limits on evidence (to wit, 1000 words/100 diffs for direct parties, 500/50 for non-parties to this case). If you're going to exceed either, ask myself or another arbitrator (on the /Evidence talk page) before you do so. To prevent "drive-by" attacks and attempts to devolve this case, we are taking additional measures to limit disruption. The case pages will be semi-protected and there will be additional scrutiny paid to accounts who haven't participated in this dispute beforehand. In other words, don't expect to try to avoid scrutiny with an IP address or an alternate, undeclared account. It will be counterproductive. If a new editor or an IP editor truly has something that needs to be said, they can ask a clerk to post for them. Finally, after I take the first few days to review the initial evidence and workshop postings, I will be posting a series of questions on the workshop page that I would like the parties to answer. I am primarily interested in what the parties have to say in response. This should be aimed solely at answering my questions and not going back and forth with other people's answers. Thank you for your attention, and hopefully, your compliance with these directives. For the Committee, SirFozzie (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a bit longer..

I apologize for the delay.. I'd explain why the PD is going to be late, but I guess the only proper response doesn't go to why it's going to be late, just say that it's late. It's going to be this weekend. Thanks for putting up with the delay, and again, I apologize. SirFozzie (talk) 06:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Take as long as you like. If you get it "wrong" then a small portion of the community will become quite vocal about how the decisions are "wrong" - See the pending changes RFC arbcom request. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 08:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh the decision is goign to be wrong. It's just a matter of waiting and seeing what it is and therefore working out who say it is wrong. (See WP:The wrong version.)--Peter cohen (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. Barring any further issues, like say, my computer becoming sentient and trying to take over humanity, a la Skynet, the decision will be up tonight. SirFozzie (talk) 06:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate the update. Nobody Ent 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Query

With regard to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Proposed_decision#Michaeldsuarez_banned_and_placed_on_non-article_space_restriction -- can a current ArbCom bind a future ArbCom? If the ban is lifted, wouldn't the terms of the unban be subject to ArbCom seated at the time? Nobody Ent 01:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the general answer to your second question is 'yes'. Future committees can discuss and vote on amendment requests of past cases, including those that adjust sanctions against users. For reference, go to the AC Noticeboard, where you will find examples of motions lifting topic bans based on changed user behavior. -- Lord Roem (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The answer to your first question is clearly No, Future arbcoms can amend decisions of this and past Arbcoms. Hence blocks and bans are indefinite rather than permanent. ϢereSpielChequers 08:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-article space restriction

I don't recall ever disturbing the non-article namespaces prior to or even during this case. What's the rationale for the proposal? Is this preventative or punitive? What problem is this proposed restriction attempting to solve / remedy? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

PD fully protected

Folks, if I see another edit war on the proposed decision, people will be blocked. I've fully protected it for a brief period (the arbitrators and clerks may edit through protection). Nobody else should be editing those pages. Risker (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Risker, I'm sorry that I had to get involved in that but I feel as though it was necessary for reasons that I'm sure I don't have to explain. I hope you don't think I was out of line editing the page in that very limited circumstance. Sædon 03:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

That's what clerks are for, Saedon; please leave it to them to manage the page. Risker (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough and will do. Sædon 05:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Can Lord Roem? They're not an admin, right? Nobody Ent 10:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Image copyright concerns

I am confused by the references to image copyright in proposed finding of fact #11 and proposed remedy #7. I asked for clarification of scope (including asking specifically about Commons), but my questions were ignored completely, even after drawing it to the attention of the drafting Arb. There was no request made for specific examples of copyright concerns, despite the decision being delayed. I'm sure some can be provided if ArbCom wants to see them - do they? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes please. May as well lay this to rest now. Sorry, I've been juggling a large number of things on-wiki so yes it would have been good to have evidence before now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a big deal, but a little confusing

The language in the proposed decisions seems to randomly switch from referring to Fae as "he" and "his" to "they" and "their". Perhaps it could be standardized as "he/his" throughout the PDs? 28bytes (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)