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 20:16, 7 January 2013 view sourceDoncram (talk | contribs)203,830 edits begin request for arbitration← Previous edit Revision as of 20:17, 7 January 2013 view source Doncram (talk | contribs)203,830 edits begin arbitration requestNext edit →
Line 2: Line 2:
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}} <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}} {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}}

{{subst|arbreq}}
== <Insert the case name> ==
'''Initiated by ''' ]]] '''at''' 20:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|username1}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|username2}}
*{{userlinks|username3}}
*{{userlinks|username4}}
<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->

;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. -->
*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 2} ===

=== Statement by {Party 3} ===

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''

=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) ===
<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small>

*


== User:Firsfron == == User:Firsfron ==

Revision as of 20:17, 7 January 2013

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
<Insert the case name>   7 January 2013 {{{votes}}}
User:Firsfron   7 January 2013 {{{votes}}}
Henderson Knocked out Fedor   7 January 2013 {{{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
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-2013-01-07T20:17:00.000Z">

Initiated by doncram at 20:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)"> ">

Involved parties">

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Diff. 1
  • Diff. 2
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Link 1
  • Link 2

Statement by {Party 1}">

Statement by {Party 2}">

Statement by {Party 3}">

Clerk notes">

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

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

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

User:Firsfron

Initiated by Tal1962 (talk) at 04:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Tal1962

My issues are not pertaining to making sure things are accurate or done within the wiki guidelines, but with the fact that Firsfron has been undoing EVERY contribution I have made to the Joan Crawford article regardless of whether or not everything I have added is at issue. Despite my asking him to stick to the suggested policies of using the talk page to settle any disagreements when it comes to what can and cannot be considered reliable or what is or is not sufficient information detailing reliable sources, and even going so far as to copy and paste them within our talks, he has stated he will undo things regardless.

This is upsetting because, except where I have at times forgotten to include page numbers, his comments are confusing. He claims I included a link to a fan website – I did not. He claims also that I failed to include ISBN numbers for books – again, I did not. So far, all books I have used as resources were either already included in the ref list prior to my using them, or added as per the ISBN#s on the back of each of the books (all of which I hold in my own collection).

His apparent refusal to use the talk pages BEFORE undoing things appears to me to go against the suggested methods as outlined by wiki. I did show him the courtesy of offering to work with him in that way, but his response was to say he would undo things regardless.

I have no issues when someone points out my mistakes – good for me and them. But to state that I need to learn the rules while ignoring them himself/herself seems to me to be absurd. While I may not be perfect as to formatting and always including complete information (page numbers), as it happens, many comments within the article remain insourced –yet he has failed to challenge these at all.

His seeming air or condescension is not in keeping with Wiki standards. As an administer, I believe that, regardless of my seeming lack of ability or alleged mistakes, it is incumbent upon him to exhibit patience and be willing to do what is best for the article as oppose to simply challenging/undoing everything, even when he is incorrect.

Example, I referenced a link to an article about Miss Crawford’s appearance on television in 1975, a time after which many assume she was no longer making ANY appearances. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=mp0fAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gdUEAAAAIBAJ&dq=joan%20crawford%20television&pg=858%2C6180927

This is not a link to a fan website, but rather an article which is the ONLY source I can find in writing thus far to back up my research that Crawford was, even if to a lesser degree, still very active after October of 1974.

I am not very concerned with the article itself so much as the admins manner of handling things.

Statement by Ryan Vesey

This needs a quick and easy procedural close. There is no level of dispute resolution that this discussion has reached. An absolute minimum amount of discussion has ocurred on Tal1962's talk page. No discussion has occurred on the article talk page. I don't know whether it can be considered a content or conduct dispute yet because discussion has not reached a point allowing that determination. I suggest that this be closed and that Tal1962 take discussion to the talk page. If a solution cannot be found at that venue, Dispute Resolution seems to be the place to go. Ryan Vesey 09:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/8/0/0)

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

  • Comment: Obviously waiting to hear from Firsfron but, in the meantime, Tal1962, could you please supply diffs to provide examples for each of the aspects you are concerned about. Thanks,  Roger Davies 04:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I had a very brief look at this early this morning and shared some of SilkTork's concerns about the perhaps slightly confrontational approach of some of the interactions.diff Hopefully, it is well on the way to being resolved. So, decline,  Roger Davies 20:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline: Arbitration is the last stage of dispute resolution. Please see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution for alternate methods of trying to resolve any dispute before bringing the matter here. NW (Talk) 12:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline. T. Canens (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Even without comment from Firsfron, I think it's fairly clear from the level of dispute resolution which has presently happened that this is not yet ready for arbitration. Tal1962, I see you haven't actually edited a talk page on Misplaced Pages since 2010, I suggest you attempt to discuss the changes you wish to make to the article at Talk:Joan Crawford, where other editors will be able to offer their opinions on the matter too. Beyond that, there's a lot of different methods of dispute resolution which you could try before we would consider arbitration. Worm(talk) 13:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline per WTT. Salvio 13:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline. Let's try and hash it out at other venues first, please. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 15:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline as an arbitration case per comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Firsfron's revert approach to editing is inappropriate. Tal1962's edits were not vandalistic, and appear to be a genuine attempt to add detail to the article. Discussion is the way forward, and doing a total revert of another editor's 4+ hours work (over thirty individual edits) with an edit summary that they should start a discussion rather than starting a discussion oneself is likely to lead to conflict. Tal1962 has used sources, and reverting the edits because the cites are not fully formatted is not the correct way forward. In a collaborative, collegiate project we assist each other, and improve on what previous editors have done, rather than reject it. We work toward perfection, but we don't expect it. However, this is a minor incident, and is not at the level of formal dispute resolution - and certainly not ArbCom. Discussion has barely started, and I encourage both editors to continue to talk together to reach an appropriate solution. I am pleased that Firsfron has offered to assist Tal1962 in formatting citations, and I hope that this supportive, collaborative approach will continue. Decline as ArbCom case. SilkTork 18:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Henderson Knocked out Fedor

Initiated by PortlandOregon97217 (talk) at 02:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Dif of notifiying IP edit. I just saw they were warned earlier for disruptive editing.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Diff of unexplained IP edit Another Unexplained IP edit of sourced content in question

Statement by PortlandOregon97217

Delinquent keeps undoing my sourced edits with no explanation. , as well as here, and he flat out removed my edit, which I had mentioned on Fedors Talkpage, without even trying to discuss the matter. I'm not sure what else to say. I just think that I have the sources that say this is a KO, and other parties can't seem to see reason, or even discuss the matter.

Edit: The same is being done, except by IP's, at the Dan Henderson page. I was having trouble adding the IP as a party involved, But I will notify them. I actually completely forgot about Dan Henderson's article until afterthefact Thanks Thank you

Answer to question of core issue The core issue is that the user in question, as well as the IP(plus probably multiple others) keep undoing my good faith, and well sourced edits, without an explanation, all while blatantly disregarding an administrators requests to discuss the matter on the talk forum. The user that is. I did not ask the admin about the IP editor in question. I also figure that it is best to settle the matter here, since it spans multiple pages, and since I dont want to just run to the admin that warned the user and say "look he did it again", and then move onto notifying an admin about the once warned IP editor about the matter. The material is whether Dan Henderson knocked out Fedor, or if it was in fact a TKO. The sources say knockout, yet people keep reverting it to a TKO.

The other core issue is that if you check my contributions I started out on here as an outright jerk, but have since calmed down and have learned to wade through the processes and try to play by the rules as best I can. Then I have people who see fit to trample on my well sourced edits with no explanation. I'm sure there have been many a person driven away from Misplaced Pages because of this. I'm not going to be one of them. But all the same it is very irking. One of the other people responding about this issue coming to a head. Why not make it now? Thank you. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Rschen7754

The article is part of the MMA area, which if I'm not mistaken has been the subject of a community-imposed sanction. This doesn't come off to me as something that really needs arbitration on first glance, but probably needs a bit more attention than the typical "content dispute" thing that gets declined off this page every week. --Rschen7754 02:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

This is clearly not ripe for Arbitration, but the Committee ought to be aware (as I am sure they are) that this subject area is a hornet's nest, and will probably require ArbCom intervention at some point, since various parties don't seem to know how to play well together, and off-wiki canvassing provides the irritation that keeps the hornets abuzz. It's likely that, because of the outside influence factor, ArbCom will have to be fairly draconian when this finally comes to a head. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Vesey

As Beyond My Ken said, this clearly isn't ripe for Arbitration; however, can one of the Arbitrators or one of the administrators who watch this page make an action as an administrator? Undoing an edit that is not vandalism requires an explanation. It is clear that PortlandOregon's edits are not vandalism. Delinquent's has undone the edit with the generic summary, the generic summary, someone really needs to ban this guy, default summary. It has been too long for administrative action to be taken; however, any administrator is allowed to impose sanctions on an editor editing MMA related articles per Misplaced Pages:General sanctions (which doesn't include the letter combination MMA, a mistake in my opinion). I'm sure an administrator can think of a sanction that could help solve this issue. Ryan Vesey 10:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur

I make the following declarations: Involved in the various MMA discussions from a policy and existsing consensus side.
I note that no reading of the MMA riot act ({{Uw-mmawarning}}) has been made to Delinquent1904. I suggest that this be enacted post haste as the locus of dispute is tagged with the MMA project banner and MMA is discussed somewhat significantly in the page. I do concur with other editors that in the future there will likely be a ArbCom case that finally settles the behavioral disputed in the entire article space of MMA, but this is simply annother tall blade in the field of grass that is the area of debate in MMA. Hasteur (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/7/0/0)

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

  • Question: I think I grasp the essentials of this but would someone kindly explain what the core issues of the dispute are please?  Roger Davies 04:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks, PortlandOregon97217, for the background. Brad offers sound advice below to put the content issue beyond doubt; the conduct aspects at this point could probably be handled by any admin. Perhaps ask at WP:AN? As far as a case goes, decline.  Roger Davies 19:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • While there may be general problems with editing in the Mixed martial arts topic area, this particular incident appears quite minor. Delinquent1904 is a significant contributor to Fedor Emelianenko and so may feel they don't need to explain their actions when reverting the edits of a more recent contributor. I feel that informing Delinquent1904 that when engaged in an editing dispute one is expected to communicate with other editors should be sufficient, and I will do that. If Delinquent1904 continues to revert without explaining their actions, then the matter can be raised at ANI, or other dispute resolution forum. Decline as an ArbCom matter. SilkTork 11:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline per SilkTork. NW (Talk) 12:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline, SilkTork sums up my thoughts here rather well, I expect we may have to look at MMA in the future but this incident doesn't need arbitration. Worm(talk) 12:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline. T. Canens (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline in the hope this dispute can be resolved without arbitration, which is often a lengthy and contentious process. This doesn't imply your dispute is unimportant, but merely that arbitration isn't the best way to resolve it. I suggest you look at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, where there are several kinds of dispute resolution that could be useful. In this case, for the content side of the dispute, I would suggest opening a discussion on the Dispute resolution noticeboard; if there are conduct issues that should be dealt with, on the other hand, after discussing with the editor in question, you can start an WP:ANI thread. The topic area is under discretionary sanctions, which means that admins are given a wide latitude to deal with ongoing disruption. Salvio 13:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline as an arbitration case per comments above. With regard to the content dispute, I don't know how records or statistics are kept in the MMA world, but is there some sort of official governing body that publishes records of match outcomes? In professional boxing, for example, one could debate endlessly whether a given fight's outcome should have been recorded as a knockout or a TKO or whatever, but there wouldn't be uncertainty into how the outcome was officially recorded, even if there were conflicting reports in the newspapers the next morning. Not sure if the same applies here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)