This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) at 21:16, 24 December 2010 (→YellowMonkey: enacting motion 2). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:16, 24 December 2010 by NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) (→YellowMonkey: enacting motion 2)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
---|---|---|---|
John J. Bulten | 23 December 2010 | {{{votes}}} |
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 motionsMotion name | Date posted |
---|---|
Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
Requests for arbitration
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
|
John J. Bulten
Initiated by → Brendan (talk, contribs) at 06:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Brendanology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- John J. Bulten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-01-04/Longevity myths
- Talk:List_of_the_verified_oldest_people#Merge_proposal (slightly more informal, but (failed) attempt at dispute/difference resolution by several users seen)
- Talk:List_of_the_verified_oldest_people/Archive_14#Bolding_war (Ditto)
Statement by Brendanology
- I will confess that I have not always been entirely civil in my interactions with John J. Bulten; however, ArbCom will be shown evidence that repeated attempted dispute resolution on longevity-related articles (both official and unofficial) with Bulten has failed time and again or shown to have been counterproductive. Bulten has behaved inappropriately on multiple longevity-related articles, such as a) intimidating and attempting to convert editors , b) threatening editors with blocks without prior attempts to seek consensus , c) submitting batches of biographies on long-lived people for deletion under near-identical criteria; d) spamming the same AfD message with minimal differences , e) broken multiple AfD contributing policies (such as not voting on your own AfD , attempts, using spammed messages, to scare off editors who voted "keep" on articles he nominated for deletion .
The request sent to ArbCom is intended as a last resort; an ArbCom discussion will provide solutions to John J. Bulten's disruptive and damaging behaviour for which previous attempts of resolution have failed time and again. → Brendan (talk, contribs) 08:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Statement by {Party 2}
Statement by {Party 3}
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
- I have left a note on the filing party's talkpage regarding the ongoing Longevity case involving both parties. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 11:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- The filing party has contacted me regarding this request for arbitration and I have explained that he or she may address this issue at the ongoing case. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 07:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)
- Decline. There is already an ongoing case regarding these disputes (Longevity); I see no reason why opening another would be necessary or beneficial. Kirill 16:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Decline per Kirill. Perhaps there may need to be consideration of a temporary injunction in relation to the existing case. Risker (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Decline as a separate case, but the issues can be addressed in the pending Longevity case, as suggested by Kirill and Risker. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Decline. Existing case. SirFozzie (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)