Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Case - 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 Mathsci (talk | contribs) at 20:20, 8 July 2012 (→Statement by {Party 2}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:20, 8 July 2012 by Mathsci (talk | contribs) (→Statement by {Party 2})(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Admin Involvement and Handling of Edits by Sockpuppets   8 July 2012 {{{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.

Admin Involvement and Handling of Edits by Sockpuppets

Initiated by TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) at 19:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

MastCell: Future Perfect: Jclemens: Nyttend: Mathsci: Collect: SightWatcher:

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by TrevelyanL85A2

I apologise for this late request. I requested arbitration on the mailing list on 12 June, following advice I was given at AE to do so, but ArbCom advised me (on 28 June) that I should make my request in public after my block expired. As ArbCom has seen my initial complaint, they know it can't be described without referring to some editors who were formerly involved in R&I. Therefore, I take ArbCom's instructions that I make the complaint in public to mean I should just summarise the dispute, without otherwise commenting on these editors.

Since May, MastCell has made several administrative actions defending Mathsci's interests in disputes related to Echigo Mole. These include deleting a pair of files that Jclemens protected as evidence for ArbCom, protecting my user talk to stop me restoring Echigo Mole's posts there, and blocking me for a month when Mathsci accused me of violating my topic ban (without giving me time to make a statement in the AE thread). This is concerning because MastCell's involvement in the dispute was privately requested by Mathsci: "Irrespective of Jclemens' protection, the two pages were later deleted by MastCell following my request" Said request must have been made privately because it was not anywhere public. Collect raised a related complaint here about Future Perfect. Jclemens suggested Collect's complaint be brought up for broader review, so I hope ArbCom can address both issues.

The basic problem affecting Collect and me is that an admin can be technically uninvolved, yet still use their powers to exclusively defend the interests of an editor or group of editors. MastCell has a long pattern of following Mathsci to disputes to defend him, both by arguing with Mathsci's opponents and using his admin tools. I'll present more examples if ArbCom accepts the case.

I'll summarise the other main aspects of this dispute because its complexity is one of the reasons I think it requires arbitration.

  • The question of when it's permissible to restore edits by sockpuppets, as debated in the AN thread. Editors seem to be held to inconsistent standards. Collect and Nyttend were allowed to restore posts from Echigo Mole socks in their user talk, but when I did the same my user talk was protected to prevent it.
  • The accusations by SilkTork, Collect and Jclemens against one of the other parties. No comment on whether the accusations are true, but a summary of the dispute needs to mention them.
  • The accusation here, here, here, and here that Jclemens abused his authority as an arbitrator. No comment on this accusation either, but a few admins and other editors made it, so I think the committee should examine it.

In summary, four admins have been accused of misconduct in this dispute: Nyttend (in the AN thread), MastCell, Future Perfect and Jclemens. Therefore, I do not think this can be resolved in an RFC, and arbitration is the best option.

Statement about TrevelyanL85A2

TrevelyanL85A2 has broken his topic ban in an extremely serious way hours after coming off a one month topic ban. I have reported him at WP:AE. At no stage recently has TrevelyanL85A2 shown even the slightest (= teeniest weeniest) sign that he is interested in building an encylopedia of any kind. On wikipedia at the moment his account appears to be "disruption-only". This request touches unfinished business involving proxy-editors. The long term abusers (Echigo mole and Mikemikev) are a different and unrelated issue: see {{WP:LTA]] . Administrators at WP:AE can handle this perfectly well without Ferahgo and Occam creating more havoc on wikipedia through their disengenuous intermediaries. Mathsci (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/1/0)