Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Motions - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aprock (talk | contribs) at 18:54, 26 February 2012 (→Discussion by others). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:54, 26 February 2012 by Aprock (talk | contribs) (→Discussion by others)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

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
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
Interaction ban between Ferahgo the Assassin and Mathsci 26 February 2012

Motions

Shortcuts

This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Motions.

Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives.

Make a motion (Arbitrators only)

You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.
Shortcut

Interaction ban between Ferahgo the Assassin and Mathsci

Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs) and Mathsci (talk · contribs) are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Misplaced Pages, and editing any article to the effect of undoing or manifestly altering a contribution by the other party except on Arbitration Enforcement and Arbitration Committee Request/case pages where either (or both) are an involved party, Requests for Comment/User where either or both are a party, or similar pages where their comments are requested. Should either account violate their bans, they may be blocked for up to one week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. The ban is indefinite, but for not less than 6 months - after which either party may request review or both may agree to request the lifting or suspension of the ban.

Support
  1. PhilKnight (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  2. Jclemens (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose


Abstain


Recuse


Comments


Discussion by arbitrators

Discussion by others

I'm confused as to what problem this motion is supposed to solve. Could one of the nominators explain how this helps the project instead of hurting it. From the best I can tell the pros and cons look something like:

  • pro: Ferahgo is no longer bothered by Mathsci's investigation into issues of meat puppetry and off wiki harassment by her and others.
  • con: Ferahgo and her clique of off-wiki associates can now recruit disruptive editors more freely.

Given the degree to which this topic area is besieged by disruptive editors (12 new editors warned/sanctioned since case close 10 months ago), an implicit invitation for more disruptive editors seems counter productive. aprock (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)