| Revision as of 01:34, 1 November 2013 view sourceRobert McClenon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers197,176 editsm ← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:41, 1 November 2013 view source NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators83,664 edits →Baiting: archiving as withdrawnNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| <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>}} | ||
| == Baiting == | |||
| '''Initiated by''' ] (]) '''at''' 00:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{admin|Mark Arsten}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{admin|Worm That Turned}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Eric Corbett}} | |||
| *{{admin|Spartaz}} | |||
| *{{admin|Fram}} | |||
| <!-- 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. --> | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| ;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 --> | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| === Statement by Mark Arsten === | |||
| Although the community has shown the ability to handle unprovoked incivility, how to respond to incivility that may have been provoked by baiting remains an intractable dispute. What action to take in response to provoked incivility is disputed, and how to handle these issues divides the community. | |||
| In this situation, {{user|StAnselm}} {{user|Eric Corbett}} to ANI for incivility, citing several recent comments he made. {{user|Spartaz}} blocked Eric Corbett for three hours in response. The next morning, {{user|Fram}} blocked Eric Corbett for three months, and {{user|Worm That Turned}} changed the block to indefinite. They cited a series of comments he made during and after the block. The issue was then raised in ]. Some users in the thread have raised the concern that Eric was baited before he made the remarks he did. Several proposals of how to respond to this issue have been made in the thread, but none have gained consensus. I think this is symptomatic of a divide in the community about how to handle the issues of baiting and incivility. | |||
| As an admin, I encounter issues of bating and incivility on a regular basis. At this point, I feel that the community has not established best practices on the matter, and I believe intervention by the arbitration committee is needed in this matter. ] (]) 00:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm not 100% sure if this is the best list of parties, I'm open to suggestions for additions. ] (]) 01:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **Added a couple per Carcharoth's statement. ] (]) 01:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *{{ping|Carcharoth}} Part of the reason that I filed this is that I encounter baiting/incivility situations regularly (I'm thinking of one in particular but will have to dig through the ANI archives to find it), and would like clarification from Arbcom on the issue. Given the difficulty finding consensus at AN today, I think it's more than just me who would benefit from this clarification. I also do not feel that this dispute can be resolved at AN because discussions about sanctions for this editor are flawed because they tend to draw old enemies and friends. I think the deliberation of the arbitration committee is needed instead. ] (]) 01:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *{{ping|Risker}} Though I did have conflict with Eric in late 2012, our interactions this year have all been pleasant (as best as I can recall) and I hold no animosity towards him. I respect your judgment on the issue though, and apologize if I've given the wrong impression by filing this. ] (]) 01:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Note: having thought this through some more, I'd like to '''withdraw''' this request. ] (]) 12:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by PantherLeapord === | |||
| ] is a core pillar of the encyclopedia. A.K.A has been blocked for incivility more times than I can bother to count! Regardless of any perceived or actual "baiting" this high number of blocks for the same thing would see ANY other editor community banned without hesitation but in this case the community is obviously willing to forget about this core pillar of the encyclopedia. As such I urge arbcom to accept this case and enforce the core the pillar that the community has forgotten about. ]|]|] 00:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Sportsguy17 === | |||
| Eric is clearly an editor who is here to write content and nothing more than that. MF/EC can clearly slip up from time to time, but seeing and (his old account), it is also clear that some admins are playing games. ] sorely needs to be re-read. Blocking's not going to solve anything, except for maybe a three to twelve hour cool down for unprovoked attacks and anger, albeit why do we allow people to bait editors ''at all'', especially ones that are dedicated to content and not just sitting at the drama boards asking for trouble. There is wheel warring occurring and ironically, we are losing the unblocking admins (INeverCry) in an unwarranted fashion, while the blocking admins have nothing happen to them. Clearly no one learned from ]. This is something even ArbCom will struggle to handle, but its our only real option at this point. <span style="text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">''''']]]'''''</span> 00:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{Comment}} -- Eric does not wish to participate in this case. <span style="text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">''''']]]'''''</span> 00:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by Bishonen: baiting by block=== | |||
| People who think a three-hour block is no big deal should try it sometime. The feeling of being blocked, especially when you think you've been blocked unjustly, is very peculiar, and ought to be experienced before being dismissed. It seems to me very understandable that Eric Corbett went into his (no doubt regrettable) "c'mon, block me some more, you assholes" mode after a hair-raisingly bad three-hour block. ] blocked him for the (frankly silly, apart from everything else) time of three hours for "telling another editor to fuck off", as Spartaz specifically expressed it in and the block log. "Fuck off" is a rough way of telling somebody to leave. Not a personal attack. It couldn't be more ''impersonal''. It's quite a widely used locution on Misplaced Pages. Some people never say it, but many do, on occasion, including admins. Including myself, I'm sure. Can't find an instance… but there must be several. Anyway, has anybody ''ever'' been blocked for saying "fuck off" before this? Telling people to fuck off is so far away from being a personal attack that you could see the distance between the two from outer space, like the ]. It was a miserably bad 3-hour block, either incompetent or deliberate bait. ] | ] 01:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC). | |||
| ===Comment by ]=== | |||
| I partly agree and partly disagree that the community has shown that it can handle unprovoked incivility. It has shown that it can handle unprovoked incivility by flamers, trolls, vandals, and similar types who are ]. It cannot handle complicated case of incivility. This case belongs to two categories of types of complicated incivility, neither of which the community can handle effectively. The first is incivility that was prompted by baiting. The editor in question has such a long history of incivility that he has set himself up as a target for baiting by bear-pokers, who provoke him and he lashes out. On the other hand, the editor in question is bear-like, strong and irascible. He has a long history of incivility that has been intermittently tolerated because it is offset by a reputation as a content creator, and he has an entourage who will back him at the noticeboards when he is blocked, and he gets unblocked. "Community consensus" is a ] in dealing with editors with complicated histories of incivility. There will not be a consensus. This leaves the ArbCom, which does not act by consensus because it votes, as the only remaining body to deal with the case that has continued to trouble the "community" because the editor has good and bad features. I urge the ArbCom to accept this case, because the "community" has shown that it is divided about this editor. I urge the ArbCom also to look at whether the bear-pokers should be dealt with. ] (]) 02:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ====Notes for Next Time==== | |||
| The filing party has (reasonably) requested withdrawal. On the other hand, a case against Eric Corbett will at some time come back to the ArbCom (again). I have a few comments. First, I was not asking for any clarification of the civility policy. I agree with those other editors who say that the policy is clear as stated. I was asking for enforcement of the existing policy as it is written. Some ideas that the policy requires clarification may be because the policy is enforced inconsistently by the "community" at the noticeboards. The policy makes it clear that baiting of an editor in order to provoke him into incivility is uncivil. It has been shown that community enforcement at the noticeboards is not effective with regard to baiting, but baiting is uncivil. Also, it is true that Eric Corbett's comment did not rise to the status of a personal attack. That does matter, but personal attacks are not the only form of incivility. His comment was uncivil, although it probably did not call for a block. Civility enforcement in cases of baiting requires analysis of the record of evidence, a function that is done reasonably well by the ArbCom, and is not done at all well if at all at the noticeboards. A case against this editor will come back to the ArbCom. It will not require clarification of the policy on civility, which is clear. It will need effective application and enforcement of the policy, for which the ArbCom is the only workable forum in cases like the next one will be. ] (]) 23:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| =====@]===== | |||
| I agree with AGK's general observations that provoked incivility is still incivility, and that there is nothing unusual about this case, but there is something about this editor (Eric Corbett), in that he is an uncivil editor whom "the community" has a history of handling less than well. "The community" has shown that it is not the best forum to handle habitually uncivil editors who are "excellent content creators" and who have entourages of fans who admire them for being excellent content creators, and possibly for causing conflict. He has been blocked. What will happen is that there will be no consensus as to the length of the block. At some point an administrator will decide to unblock him. He will then not be reblocked, because the original blocking admin will avoid causing a wheel war. At some point he will be back to ArbCom. There is no issue of clarification of policy or interpretation of policy. There is an issue of enforcement of policy. The community does not effectively enforce civility policy with respect to editors like Eric Corbett. This case will eventually be back to ArbCom. In the meantime, EC will be blocked until he is unblocked, and then he will be uncivil until he is blocked again or taken to ArbCom. ] (]) 01:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by John Cline=== | |||
| I have observed the actions which led to this request and will remain to participate as an interested editor. I think this request however, should be declined as it is being handled by the community and is solvable there. If a case does ensue, expect my participation as it will surely be an endeavor of mine; as well.—] (]) 02:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by Scottywong=== | |||
| No clarification of the civility policy is required, and there is no need to complicate the civility policy by requiring an analysis of ''why'' someone decided to be uncivil. If you're uncivil for any reason, then you're uncivil. If someone called you an asshole, and you responded by calling them an asshole, then you're both equally uncivil. It doesn't matter who "started it first". We're all (supposed to be) adults here. If you can't remain civil in the face of someone else who is being less than civil to you, then maybe you don't belong here. The proper response to someone who you perceive as trying to "bait" you is to report the incident to an administrator or at ANI, and don't take the bait by responding in kind. Ask them politely to stay off your talk page, or to refrain from being uncivil, and if they don't, then they'll eventually end up being blocked and you won't have to deal with them anymore. The minute you take the bait and are uncivil back to them, then that's the point where you will also be blocked. And, if you happen to have been blocked 23 times in the past for civility, then you will probably get blocked a lot sooner than someone else. | |||
| Moral of the story: the civility policy, as it currently exists, is sufficient. It's not necessary to provide additional clarifications about the perceived reasons why someone is being uncivil. Incivility is incivility, regardless of the reasons behind it. ]] 02:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by Drmies=== | |||
| It is obvious that "civility" in our joint is considered to be nothing more than a matter of checking someone's words against a list of words deemed unacceptable. ''Treating'' someone as an outcast, a persona non grata, or a less-than-whole editor is much more uncivil than telling someone to fuck off. I'm disappointed that admins who ought to know better if only by the virtue of their being an admin look for nothing but that--who said "cunt" first? It's shortsighted and childish; these are the editors that think that a civility block is like a lesson. {{U|Bishonen}}'s comment on what a block might feel like is relevant: I am lucky that mine was lifted before I logged back in (so I never actually saw a "you got blocked" message--I wonder what it's like), because I don't know if I would have been able to keep my cool. Anyway, I would like ArbCom to step in and make some ''statement'' about what civility really is. Hint: it is not what Scottywong, Fram, Spartaz, and others seem to think. And no, that doesn't mean that anything goes. Duh. ] (]) 04:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Comment by Guy Macon === | |||
| I have requested some actual numbers for provoked vs unprovoked incivility at ] --] (]) 07:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Update: we have some interesting numbers, but could use another set of eyes looking them over. --] (]) 14:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Fram === | |||
| Baiting is a serious problem, but not every negative comment is a case of baiting or poking the bear. In this specific case, I have explained at the AN discussion that I don't consider the comments that lead to my block of Eric Corbett to be directly caused by baiting, but were made calmly and deliberately (as far as one can be certain of these things as an observer on a website), in the full knowledge of what the result would be. Even so, I was accused by one editor of poking and of being the cause of Eric Corbett's "incense". Again, baiting is a problem, but too often it is used as an excuse to defend the indefensible. But I don't think this is the right scope for an ArbCom case. ] (]) 07:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Worm That Turned === | |||
| I suppose it was inevitable that this was going to end up here. Arbcom is the wrong place to deal with this, as quite simply I do not believe a nuanced solution would come out of it, it'd be a ban. I request that the arbitrators decline the case and leave it to the community as discussion is still progressing at AN. If that closes without any outcome I would prefer the next step to be RfC/U - as it's currently a red link, where the community can work towards a more permanent solution. If that fails also, then Arbcom should be the final resort. On the other hand, if this case does get accepted, I request that discussions be held on a list that does not include me - I want nothing to do with it. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 07:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Comment by Spartaz === | |||
| Arbitration for a short block of a user imposed for telling another editor 'Fuck off troll'? What next? An RFC to see which way the sun rises in the morning? I certainly understand Eric's frustration with the block and I wasn't offended by his having a go at me on his talk page after the block but some of his persistent supporters need to get a grip on reality. The idea that everyone else has to accept Eric's foul language because he was provoked isn't the slightest bit compatible with the same argument that he isn't expected to accept anything from other editors he disagrees with. Indeed this argument seems rather bogus and lacks logic, consistency & fairness. | |||
| If the committee seriously believes that an admin shouldn't block any user who tells another editor to fuck off or calls them a cunt then desyop me now and block me from the project forever because there is no way I'm ever going to accept that either is acceptable. | |||
| Oh, and can you pass a motion prohibiting Mark from raising any more RFARs from situations he is not involved in? <s>This is turning into an unpleasant habit and the last editor I remember obsessively raising RFArs like this was John254 and we all remember how that ended up. </s>] <sup>'']''</sup> 09:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Last part struck at the request of AGK. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 13:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| @Jehockman, if Eric could find some way to express his frustrations without telling people to fuck off or comparing them to cunts then we wouldn't be here in the first place. I'm sorry but your attitude stinks. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 13:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Suggestion by Jehochman === | |||
| {{Replyto|Spartaz}}, could you please refrain from making blocks that intensify disputes? If you're going to continue administrating this site, you need to understand when an action makes things worse, and when it makes things better. If a user is aggravated (evidenced by them saying something like "fuck off"), it is often helpful to have a friendly editor go to their talk page and ask why they are upset, and what can be done to make things better. Did you consider that the user was in fact being trolled and that maybe it would have been a lot better for the encyclopedia if you had blocked the troll instead of the victim? Blocking a user for simple profanity, one that is not in any way a personal attack, is poor judgment. Please don't do it again. Thank you. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Ched === | |||
| If this stays open much longer, then I WILL make a statement. The committee as a whole has been an embarrassment to a noble effort for some time, and if this project is to survive - then changes must be made. As a collective group you all should be ashamed of your behavior. As individuals you are all wonderful people - but as a group? You should be kicked to the curb. — ]] 23:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * Time and again this committee has refused to even make a statement about administrative misconduct. You've collectively declined to review the "administration" of this site. My comments are not really relevant to the case at hand, and I realize that - but I know that at least a few of you are burned out due to time and real life situations. You are making some very poor judgments. The "protect your own" is very obvious. To accept this particular case or not is not the point I'm trying to make. There is a real and volatile situation in regards to "wp:civil" when it comes to people who game our site and bait experienced editors. Mark did not bring this here lightly - rather he considered the situation and asked the committee to review a standing policy in wp:civil. The fact that some of you would take cheap pot-shots at him is embarrassing. How dare you - you should be ashamed of yourselves. The committee's behavior over the last year has enabled the childish admin. to act in foolish ways, and discouraged adult editors from contributing in positive ways. I would think you would be grateful to have a request brought in an uninvolved fashion rather then the "he/she pissed me off" fashion. Yes, I did complain about the harsh committee of the 08 era - but there is still need to have rules. You people need to grow a pair .. you need to be "Management" ... As it is? You are a laughingstock. When an admin screws up? Then make a motion that admonishes them. I don't give a shit what you do to me, but please don't let children overun this site. UseNET outlived "useful" ... do you really want Misplaced Pages to go down that same road? Some of you owe Mark an apology. Be big enough to do it. — ]] 01:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by SandyGeorgia === | |||
| I'm seeing some pots calling the kettle black. ] (]) 18:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by / Comment by X === | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| *'''Recuse''' from this particular filing. --''']]]''' 19:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Per ] this request will be removed by a clerk from 12:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC). ''']''' (] • ] • ]) 05:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Baiting: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/4/1/2> === | |||
| <small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small> | |||
| * <s>Awaiting statements from the other named parties. ] ]] 00:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)</s> | |||
| ::Several issues are at play here: | |||
| :: 1) ''Eric failing to rise above provocation:'' Working on a collaborative, volunteer-run project means one will encounter both well- and ill-meaning stupidity. Contributors are expected to rise above this, by reacting like mature adults. Eric failed to do so in this latest instance, and in many others beforehand. Provocation is a mitigating but not exonerative factor. I disagree that a block was not warranted here. | |||
| :: 2) ''General policy issues:'' The distinction between "provoked incivility" and "unprovoked incivility" is an artificial construction and is not evidence of a gulf in site policy. If Eric has been uncivil, he should be dealt with by the community in the ordinary way. Arbitration cases on general policy issues are useless, and I will not vote to open one. | |||
| :: 3) ''Sanctioning Eric:'' He is actually already been dealt with in the ordinary way. An administrator has indefinitely blocked Eric, pending satisfactory assurances that he will stop being so hostile and potty-mouthed. This block has been referred to the community, at AN, for endorsement. The community should now review and endorse the indefinite block; an arbitration case on this specific instance of incivility would be a worse means of reaching the same end. | |||
| :: 4) ''Three-hour blocks:'' Short blocks are frequently used by administrators to make people cool off; the notion that we do not use “cool down blocks” seems like another artificial construction. Even if we posit that such blocks should not be and are not used, Spartaz’s block in any case fell within the range of fair administrator discretion to prevent ongoing disruption. By the sake token, WormThatTurned’s block was also acceptable. | |||
| ::For these reasons, I would '''decline''' this request and refer Eric’s indefinite block to the community for endorsement. If the AN thread fails to produce a satisfactory result, the community really would be incapable of resolving this dispute – and I would (only then) be minded to open a case on Eric. ] ]] 12:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Also awaiting statements, but not inclined to take a case. Mark, may I ask why you have filed this case? Were you involved in the dispute at any stage, or is this one of those 'bystanders filing a case' matters? I would prefer it if someone actually involved in this incident filed a request - that would seem to be either Eric, or one of the three blocking administrators. If none of those four want to file a request, then no-one else should be filing a request either. It may be better for this request to be withdrawn, and then we can wait and see if the matter gets resolved in the ongoing discussions. ] (]) 01:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Decline''' procedurally, per the filing party's desire to withdraw this request. Couple of additional comments: (i) ], can you please get a sense of perspective? This request (at least as currently framed) is clearly not going to result in a case. The arbs that have commented are declining the case request. I commented last night, and am commenting again tonight. What more do you want? The clerks will withdraw the request 24 hours after the filer requested it be withdrawn, providing the conditions are met (follow the link provided by Courcelles). It may be bureaucratic, but it is the system we have (it was intended to discourage frivolous filings, but maybe stronger measures are needed to discourage such premature filings). (ii) Having reviewed what led to this latest round of discussions, there might possibly be a case to be made for examining whether the annual tensions that arise at the Guy Fawkes/Guy Fawkes Night/5 November suite of articles should be the subject of an arbitration case. It seems to cause problems every year. Maybe a closer look will identify any chronic problems there. ] (]) 01:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ***Ched, Risker was absolutely right to say that Mark was the wrong person to be filing this case. Please don't push that. On a wider point, there ''is'' a problem with bystanders filing a case. Arbitration cases work best when those ''involved'' in the dispute realise that enough is enough and agree that arbitration is needed. When others take them to arbitration, you end up with parties less willing to participate in a case and/or continuing the conflict during a case. There is a reason there are prior steps in dispute resolution, and there are reasons why short-circuiting those steps is not a good idea. And finally, ArbCom are not there to hand-hold the editorial community over policy. The policy is written by the community. If it is not fit for purpose, the impetus to make changes needs to come from the community and those senior editors most familiar with policies and able to propose, draft and gain consensus for lasting changes. Former arbitrators may be able to help if no-one else steps forward, but don't drag current arbitrators into policy changes. ] (]) 01:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * Awaiting statements, but leaning toward declining per Carcharoth. Mark, you have a history with Eric, and you're definitely the wrong person to be filing this. ] (]) 01:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Decline''' as moot. ] (]) 03:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ***{{U|Ched}}, I'm sorry that we're all so damn disappointing to you. In a few weeks, you can elect a new bunch of people to be disappointed with. I wish them luck. ] (]) 03:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Recuse''' ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 07:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm not clear what ArbCom is being asked to do here that is within the Committee's remit. Are we being asked to consider admin misconduct in relation to the blocks? If so, that seems too early as there are other venues to discuss the blocks first. Policy on civility or baiting is not within the Committee's remit, and I would decline the case if that is the request. Unless there is something for the Committee to do, this looks like a decline. ''']''' ''']''' 10:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' procedurally, per the filing party's desire to withdraw this request () No prejudice or impediment towards this working its way back here in the future, either short or long term, such matters can be considered freshly. ] {{undated|1=}} | |||
| *<s>'''Fuck off'''</s> Archive request as withdrawn. ] (]) 14:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:41, 1 November 2013
Requests for arbitration
Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
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 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, 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.
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.
General guidance
|
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.