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 21:28, 6 October 2016 view sourceDennis Brown (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions69,230 edits →Statement by completely uninvolved Dennis Brown: fx← Previous edit Revision as of 21:39, 6 October 2016 view source George Ho (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users118,101 edits →Statement by George Ho: strikingNext edit →
Line 60: Line 60:
I'm trying to prove that I'm not canvassing. People can think I'm canvassing. However, I notified one of editors who favors IIO. Never mind, maybe I'm too good for Misplaced Pages here if this request is declined. 18:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC) I'm trying to prove that I'm not canvassing. People can think I'm canvassing. However, I notified one of editors who favors IIO. Never mind, maybe I'm too good for Misplaced Pages here if this request is declined. 18:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


All right. I don't know how to withdraw this request. However, I'm declaring '''withdrawal''' and do less intense dispute resolutions. I'll not file an ArbCom request until 00:00 7 October 2017 (UTC). I'll try more conversations over and over with others next time. I'll exhaust and exhaust all attempts to resolve things in the future. ] (]) 21:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC) All right. I don't know how to withdraw this request. However, I'm declaring '''withdrawal''' and do less intense dispute resolutions. I'll not file an ArbCom request until 00:00 7 October 2017 (UTC). I'll try more conversations over and over with others next time. <s>I'll exhaust and exhaust all attempts to resolve things in the future.</s> ] (]) 21:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


=== Statement by In ictu oculi === === Statement by In ictu oculi ===

Revision as of 21:39, 6 October 2016

Shortcut


Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
In ictu oculi   6 October 2016 0/4/0
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.

In ictu oculi

Initiated by George Ho (talk) at 04:23, 6 October 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 George Ho

I promise you Arbs that I will not notify too many unlisted people, especially ones who could not handle this person any longer, like I did in the ongoing (but soon to be previous) case. However, without knowing who favors IIO, I can’t notify people about this case... yet. Strategically, I can do favor-against-favor-against to appear neutral. However, that depends on my relationship with IIO. I am listing ones as involved parties who filed ANI complaint on IIO.

Personally, I encountered IIO for years. Well, before anyone can find me “disruptive” again per another FoF proposal, I must admit... my shameless acts that I did on IIO. I invited him to RM discussions to either counter-balance the consensus or populate the RM discussions. Also, I made verbal threats on him inexcusably; so did Unreal7. Nevertheless, that was a response to IIO’s treatment on titles. Punish me and Unreal7 if you want. Please forgive me, Unreal7. I want to say this before someone else like IIO would make statements about me... and you. However, the main concern is In ictu oculi. (I don’t know whether IIO is a he or she, so I’m using IIO instead).

In Requested Move discussions, IIO made repetitive or poor rationales in favor of disambiguating titles or adding unnecessary parenthetical terms for titles. IIO created articles, some or many of which got deleted. Unreal7 and I confronted IIO about his repetitive rationales before Unreal7 and I... made personal attacks on him. Not just me and Unreal7, many others contacted or confronted IIO about IIO’s actions. When he attempted a move, like Protection (album), someone else reverts it. By the way, I had to fix the RM mess by re-proposing the disambiguation. I couldn’t refute the closure of the previous RM at WP:move review because of the status of the mess.

The ANI cases about IIO appeared futile and fruitless. And I did not start ANI cases... though I threatened either ANI or ArbCom on him. Well, I did apologize to IIO, though I'm not sure whether the apology was apologetic or non-apologetic. Why am I risking myself by talking about what I did to IIO? I want to redeem myself, and (again) I want to say this before someone else does. This apparently would risk the request be declined, but there are no other choices left to handle In ictu oculi.

On the positive, IIO... might be trying to improve Misplaced Pages and might have been showing readers many things of the same names. Begoon, if you are reading this, I'm doing my best not to treat IIO like my enemy (maybe anymore if I did that before). I don’t want IIO banned actually. IIO could do some good. However, I can't condone IIO other actions either.

04:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Why did I invite him to RM? He always makes same ol', same ol' arguments everywhere, anywhere. I wanted to take advantage of that to achieve what I need. However, no more "old" me doing dirty tricks. Time for "new" me to take action and do something right. George Ho (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

(I'll redact below comments later)

To ArbComs who voted "decline" to this case

Please let's wait for involved parties... Please? Then I'll comment more later. Okay? Also, Fyunck(click) () says that he'll be back on Sunday. 16:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

To Daniel Brown, Fram, Edmund Patrick, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Johnuniq

I know you think of this as one of my "disruptions". I am unsure why you think this is one of my wrongs. I tried conversation with IIO, and it was fruitless. 16:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to prove that I'm not canvassing. People can think I'm canvassing. However, I notified one of editors who favors IIO. Never mind, maybe I'm too good for Misplaced Pages here if this request is declined. 18:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

All right. I don't know how to withdraw this request. However, I'm declaring withdrawal and do less intense dispute resolutions. I'll not file an ArbCom request until 00:00 7 October 2017 (UTC). I'll try more conversations over and over with others next time. I'll exhaust and exhaust all attempts to resolve things in the future. George Ho (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by In ictu oculi

  • What specifically is the problem George? Am I wrong in what I explained at Talk:Protection (album) regarding WP:Disambiguation and WP:Naming conventions (music)? There are two album articles of the same name - which the consensus of recent RFC is follow normal disambiguation here. You have just reposted the move in exactly the same direction that I implemented. I'm sorry but is this personal? It is not personal for me, just housekeeping. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • And on what basis have you selected the other editors? You seem to have gone back over my history 6 years to find anyone who (a) argued for special cases either on music (which had a history of "primary album" "primary song" at one point, but is now totally resolved) or (2) a totally unrelated subject, objection to en.Misplaced Pages's consistent use of full font accents WP:FRMOS etc, and which again is ancient history and totally resolved by overwhelming RFCs. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Unreal7

Statement by PBS

Statement by Tbhotch

Statement by Fyunck(click)

Out of town till Sunday, plus I've pretty much given up any hope with this editor. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ss112

I've come across IIO many times in the last month because they seem to frequently move music topics around to unnecessarily disambiguated titles or comment on RMs. Quite frankly I agree with one of the linked discussions above that IIO should have move restrictions placed upon them. When we came into contact the first time I looked at IIO's move history and was simply astounded that one user has spent most of their time on Misplaced Pages over the years performing thousands upon thousands of moves, many of which from a cursory glance looked to be wholly unnecessary and done because IIO seems to want specificity on Misplaced Pages even if it's unnecessary in titles. Consensus was established in June of this year that albums or songs can be placed under "title (album) or "title (song)" if no other artist has an article under that name or the other titles are not notable, on which IIO participated, then they felt they could lecture me on apparently ignoring WP:DISAMBIGUATION when in the original instance I wanted (and would respect) consensus. I don't really care about their reasoning because I've had enough of their WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, circular logic and persistence in posting on my talk page/pinging me altogether, quite honestly. I understand people have areas of Misplaced Pages that are of particular interest but this, to me, is extreme. Ss112 05:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment on later messages: I understand processes like this also look at the behaviour of the filing user, and I already know from his mentorship and many other users mentioning it that George Ho has some issues he has to work on, but this Arbitration request is about IIO, not George Ho. He already stated that he's trying not to make it personal in this case, and I'm inclined to believe that because the users he has listed have had recent issues with IIO (as in, this year) and his continuous, unnecessary disambiguation, even disregarding consensus and guidelines that he quotes to others. I'm not saying it needs to go through a long and drawn-out Arbitration process, but IIO has been doing this for years and even Fyunck(click) has raised the point to GH that any time he mentions an issue about IIO to administrators or to a noticeboard, nothing happens to IIO. Do administrators not care that users are unnecessarily disambiguating articles due to the existence of similarly named topics that don't have articles and/or are not notable? (Not referring to Protection here.) My point is, if others want to block GH, I don't know why that's being brought up here when the original filed purpose was about IIO's actions. Ss112 11:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.

I'm apparently not the first person to notice a pattern where George Ho sweeps through some trivial dispute that doesn't concern him, picks a fight at random and escalates it like a drama-mongering busybody, not out of ill will but out of sheer social incompetence. Apparently he's about to have a FoF to this effect in a parallel Arb case just now and is just about to escape an Arbcom block there. I have to say, my first gut reaction in seeing this ridiculous Arbcom filing over a non-issue was to block George for it. Would the arbs mind it very much if I did that now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by completely uninvolved Dennis Brown

George Ho has been a drain for some time, I'm betting over 100 times, often helpful but just as often stirring the pot, seemingly out of an inability to control himself or gauge the situation. I could link a bunch of essay pages and hurt some feelings in the process, but everyone knows him. The issue has risen to the level that a block is justified and doesn't need Arb intervention, the regular community processes are sufficient. If Fut. Perf. blocks, I would support. I've considered other options, but they are unworkable in this case. I suggest quickly declining and allowing normal community processes to handle this situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

  • George Ho, I'm not sure promising to "exhaust and exhaust" others is the answer we are looking for. It's kind of the exact opposite of what we want. The correct answer is "I will not get involved and just edit". That means stay out of discussions and just edit where there is no controversy. You do not handle controversy well. If this exercise has taught you anything, that should be it. I'm not convinced you get the point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Fram

As the one that provided the FoFs against George Ho in the still ongoing other ArbCom case, I'm not uninvolved any longer, otherwise I would have blocked him. As it stands, the case should be dismissed by Arbcom and George Ho blocked (by arbcom or any uninvolved admin) for an utterly frivolous case (not a single diff (in the loosest sense of the word) from 2016!), and for having baited IIO in the first place (judging from George Ho's opening statement). Fram (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

I also have seen significant unhelpful forays by George Ho and a community remedy would be appreciated. One example is here. Johnuniq (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


Statement by completely uninvolved* Edmund Patrick

This enterprise is desperately trying to be firstly an encyclopedia and secondly by default a social platform, but in recent times this trend is reversing. This leads to the overall detrement of Misplaced Pages as more and more editors (which wiki is struggling to attract and keep) are spending time responding to another event, in this case another concern of George Ho. * Uninvolved in this RfA but my one interaction with this editor has been through the ongoing debacle of a RfA that I along with others have spent a considerable amount of editing time on. I totally agree with User:Dennis Brown and Fut.Perf. a block is justified before more damage is done.Edmund Patrick – confer 12:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

George Ho I cannot say what this is as I am a trained museum worker not mind worker but I most certainly do not look upon it as mere "disruptions" or one of your wrongs, the amateur guess that I can come up with - it's a behavioural thing. Your "request" is a perfect example using words that have only just appeared - in your statement. Apologies I at least knoiw this is not the space for these discussions but needs must.Edmund Patrick – confer 16:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Iridescent

My comments here apply just as well to this case. I endorse the comments made by virtually everyone above entirely; I have no particular doubt that George Ho is acting in good faith, but cleaning up his combination of attempting to goad participants in minor disagreements into having major disputes (I note that the most recent diff in the "prior attempts at dispute resolution" above is from 2015), wild conspiracy theories and utter incompetence has become a complete timesink. He can claim "Competence is not required" as much as he likes, but Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project, not his personal sandbox, and every single person listed above has better things they could be doing. Unless you plan either to block him by motion, or topic-ban him by motion from starting threads on any dispute resolution board, please decline this before it wastes any more time. ‑ Iridescent 16:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Capeo

I'm given to understand that George Ho has been on WP for quite a while and has contributed productively in many areas. After watching the TRM case, the constant commenting that's barely comprehensible along with the disruptive glut of nonsensical FoFs and proposals on the workshop page, I'm left mystified as to how that's the case. This request follows that same pattern. I can't even tell what it's supposed to be about. George Ho is also canvassing editors it appears. Including, baffling as this is, an arb. One way or another this behavior has to be ended. Capeo (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad

@George Ho: I strongly suggest that you withdraw this request and agree that it can be closed. Do it right now. Just type, "I withdraw this request and agree that it can be closed." Then find something else to do on Misplaced Pages totally unrelated to dispute-resolution processes, and don't return to the arbitration pages for at least a year. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:45, 6 October 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).

In ictu oculi: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/4/0>-In_ictu_oculi-2016-10-06T12:25:00.000Z">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Decline I believe "flabbergasted" is the appropriate word to describe my thoughts on this request. --kelapstick 12:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)"> ">
  • Decline Flabbergasted is too mild. Appalled might be better. I used to think this editor was harmless and tried to help him. This case request shows that I was wrong. I've switched my vote on the TRM PD from oppose to support an indefinite block. Doug Weller talk 13:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy decline. Salvio 15:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline. George. No. Please think this through: if you compile a list of "prior dispute resolution" and the items in the list date back to 2012 and the most recent one occurred almost a year ago, requesting an arbcom case is the wrong thing to do. If you are in the middle of an arbcom case in which an indefinite block on your account has been proposed, but is not passing, and in which you have been cited specifically for canvassing, then alerting participants in that year-old ANI thread - including an arb who will see this anyway and a person who hasn't edited in three months - is a really bad idea. I am tempted to propose that you be prohibited from initiating dispute resolution, because you clearly lack good judgment on when and how to do so. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)