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 02:10, 3 July 2016 view sourceDrmies (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators406,320 edits →Doc James: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter← Previous edit Revision as of 05:46, 3 July 2016 view source Keilana (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators59,299 edits →Doc James: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter: dNext edit →
Line 98: Line 98:
*'''Decline''' I don't think the problem is just "premature"-- that the dispute is not yet at the stage where arb is needed, but that this request is attempt to intensify a dispute, which is what we mean by "battleground" ''']''' (]) 22:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC) *'''Decline''' I don't think the problem is just "premature"-- that the dispute is not yet at the stage where arb is needed, but that this request is attempt to intensify a dispute, which is what we mean by "battleground" ''']''' (]) 22:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
**DGG, I think the "premature" part points out possible, hypothetical future problems but, in the meantime, you are absolutely correct. ] (]) 02:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC) **DGG, I think the "premature" part points out possible, hypothetical future problems but, in the meantime, you are absolutely correct. ] (]) 02:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' as premature. ] (]) 05:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:46, 3 July 2016

Shortcut


Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Doc James   1 July 2016 {{{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.

Doc James

Initiated by RoseL2P (talk) at 02:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Statement by RoseL2P

User:Doc James, previously known as Jmh649, was

1. Subjected in 2009 to an Arbcom-imposed edit restriction of six months for incivility and edit-warring .

2. Blocked in 2009 for violating his Arbcom-imposed restriction

3. Warned in 2013 and in 2014 for edit warring and being disruptive

4. And has shown very poor judgement in the midst of the ongoing drama at Misplaced Pages:Harassment - making three controversial reverts within the space of two hours. . A protracted pattern of aggressive edit-warring, especially on such a sensitive policy or guideline, is extremely disruptive, inexplicably unwise, and could ultimately lead to someone being seriously harmed.

Please do something to rein in his behavior because it is incompatible with the standards expected of an experienced administrator.

RoseL2P (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Casliber

@User:Casliber: I have no wish to treat this place as a battleground. If you think that's what I intended, you have misunderstood my entire posting.

Reply to Doc James

@User:Doc James: Speaking of battleground behavior, why do you say that people are getting "caught in the cross fire"? Please clarify where this "cross fire" is coming from because the gunman needs to stop, immediately.

RoseL2P (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Doc James

What is the dispute between User:RoseL2P / User:A1candidate and I exactly? And what methods have been tried in the last year to address this? The evidence provided appears to be simply a random list of disputes I have been involved in over the last 8 years and 170,000 edits.

Our poor ability to address undisclosed paid editing results in ongoing real life harassment of long term editors. It decreases AGF as long term editors, who frequently have paid editors trying to mislead them, become more suspicious. Good faith editors are than sometimes caught in the cross fire. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Frequent undisclosed paid editing and some of the dishonest techniques they employ make the editing community more suspicious of each other. Because the editing community is more suspicious generally they are more likely to bite new comers. Wishing that undisclosed paid editing stop is not going to make it happen. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Softlavender

<scratching head> RoseL2P, what is your particular dispute with Doc James? You're a semi-retired editor who hasn't made a single edit to Misplaced Pages mainspace since September 2015. This so-called case against Doc James seems to be nothing more than a trumped-up collection of a handful of minor infractions spread over 7 years. Suggest you withdraw this before it boomerangs on you. Softlavender (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris

Arbitration requests are not the Misplaced Pages equivalent of a free shot. We can be tolerant of inexperienced editors who file specious cases. But someone who has been here four years, with over 15,000 edits and extensive prior experience with dispute resolution in general and arbitration in particular (over 1000 edits to such venues) has no such excuse, and should be shown that there are consequences. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Awilley

Last year I issued a stern warning to RoseL2P/A1Candidate about battleground behavior, and specifically about "focusing on contributors over content" and "abuse of Misplaced Pages processes to eliminate ideological opponents". (link) Since then only 3 of their (100) edits have been to article space, while 70 have been in Misplaced Pages space, including participation in 2 arbcom cases/requests involving former opponents. When this request closes I intend to enforce the "boomerang" Softlavender mentioned, unless someone beats me to it. ~Awilley (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Chris troutman

A cursory review of the so-called evidence doesn't show any wrong-doing on Doc James's part. While it's becoming clear ARBCOM won't accept this case I certainly hope there will be consequences for the original poster as we cannot have those who are not here to be contributors using these forums to harass our Wikipedians. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

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

Doc James: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/0/0>-Doc_James-2016-07-01T07:44:00.000Z">

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