Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Only (talk | contribs) at 23:30, 4 January 2007 (Reverted edits by The Blue Lion (2) (talk) to last version by Thatcher131). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• ]

A request for Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting Arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom).

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four net accept votes are cast; that is, four more accept than reject votes. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details. "Recuse" means that an Arbitrator has excused themselves from a case because of a possible, or perceived, conflict of interest. Cases which have not met the acceptance criteria after 10 days will be removed from this page.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or Clerk may do so.

See also

• Arbitration policy
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy/Past decisions
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case - Recommended reading: An (unofficial) guide to presenting effective Arbitration cases.
• Arbitration enforcement - Any user can request help here if it involves the violation of an ArbCom decision
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Arbitration template

Current requests

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults

I need some help. For the past few months I have been just about the only admin to respond to complaints at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. There have been two complaints filed against NuclearUmpf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), formerly Zer0faults, under probation at the above case. I have taken no action on these complaints, for various reasons. My judgement has been called into question multiple times. No other admins have weighed in at WP:AE. Last month I posted a request for arbitrator review that sat on the page here for a week before it was archived without response.

Generally, I would say that the people filing the complaints believe NuclearUmpf is continuing the disruptive behavior for which he was placed on probation.

• In this case I declined to enforce probation against Nuclear Umpf in which he was one participant in an edit war involving 12 editors in total.
• In the current complaint I have declined to enforce the probation following brief edit wars over tagging two images as disputed, and over a post to a user subpage being used as a noticeboard (3 reverts in 26 hours) in which there was no attempt to talk with Nuclear prior to posting the complaint at WP:AE.

Perhaps my understanding of probation is at fault. I would appreciate a review. Thatcher131 14:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

IRC logs

Hello. An excerpt of an IRC log were placed on and were subsequently removed from the project's talk page. I seek clarification from the Committee as to the extent to which we are we permitted to or prohibited from discussing the content contained in this excerpt (without direct quotations, of course). Since I have already commented on these, I would like to know whether I am in breach of the rules by doing so, so that, if applicable, I could rectify this and remove my comment accordingly. The pertinent comments are here. El_C 00:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This discussion needs to go to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard in order to attempt to resolve the general questions involved regarding nasty behavior on IRC channels. The arbitrators did find Misplaced Pages:No_personal_attacks#Off-wiki_personal_attacks in the course of our discussions. It would probably be best not to rely on those particular logs or discuss their details, but the questions they raise, and the other questions raised regarding hostile or dismissive comments on IRC need to be discussed. I doubt anyone would fault you for your comments so far. Fred Bauder 15:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Fred. I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my question. While I do have thoughts regarding the particulars of the aforementioned excerpt, I will keep these confined to my mind, or at least, offwiki. For now. El_C 17:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giano

Since his arbitration case, Giano has shown continued incivility. This is most recently discussed on WP:ANI#Block_of_Giano_II and WP:ANI#Giano.27s_rampant_incivility. Most recently, uncivil comments like and led to a block on Giano which was endorsed by Jimbo, when he chose to unblock on the condition that "I hope that at least for the next 72 hours, you will agree to be calm and non-attacking". Giano's responses (even to Jimbo's personal note) broke this trust "IRC stooge sent by a lying admin on IRC", "IRC stooge", "Tell them to shove their comments up their borealis, my little nothern star", and he was subsequently reblocked for "I never talk behind people's backs - a concept I don't expect you to understand", however, Giano has been unblocked yet again, and quickly resumes with incivlity like "little-admin-with-the-funny-unpronouncable-name". I propose a standard civility parole to both cool the disruptive behavior, and give administrators a clear way to enforce it in the future without constant blocking and unblocking.

The following remed shall be amended to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giano if passed:

With 14 arbitrators now active, the majority is 8. Thatcher131 08:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: with my recuse in this case the number of active arbitrators is 13 and the majority is 7. FloNight 14:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Now 12 actives; majority still 7.. James F. (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Giano placed on civility parole

Giano (Giano (talk · contribs), Giano II (talk · contribs) or subsequent accounts) is placed on standard civility parole for one year. He may be blocked for 24 hours, or up to a week for repeated offenses, for any edit which an uninvolved administrator deems to be a personal attack, incivility, or an assumption of bad faith. Blocks shall be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano#Log of blocks and bans and noted on Giano's talk page.

Support:

1. First choice. Dmcdevit·t 00:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 00:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

   James F. (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Third choice. James F. (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Recusing, per request. James F. (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

3. ➥the Epopt 01:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Too one-sided, too punitive, unhelpful. Jayjg 20:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Not helpful. Paul August ☎ 03:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Agree with Jayjg - I don't see this as headed towards a solution to this problem. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Agree with the above; I don't think that this remedy is helpful. Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Not happy with the way this was proposed. Charles Matthews 17:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Giano asked to leave the project for two weeks

alternative to the remedy above

The Committee notes that Giano has made extensive contributions to the encyclopedia. Building the encyclopedia is Misplaced Pages's core mission. However, Misplaced Pages's behavioral standards exist to allow all Wikipedians to work together to build the encyclopedia efficiently.

Despite repeated warnings, Giano has continued to violate Misplaced Pages's behavioral standards. The Committee is concerned that Giano and other observers may conclude that there is no effective enforcement of these standards.

The Committee reluctantly requires Giano to leave the project for a period of two weeks, after which he is encouraged to return. We hope to see more of the excellent writing which is the greatest strength Giano brings to the project. In recognizance of Giano's standing within the community, he is expected to observe this remedy voluntarily; his account shall not be blocked to enfore this remedy unless it becomes clear that he is in deliberate violation of this it.

Support:

1. I rather like this. First choice. I do not think that this is an exception beyond the pale, given Giano's contributions and his difficult history. James F. (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Recusing, per request. James F. (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I have decided that exceptions for "good contributors" are inappropriate, some leeway, yes, but not to the proposed degree. Fred Bauder 15:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC) He was already excused, if not explicitly warned in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giano. Fred Bauder 15:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
2. I don't feel that this would accomplish much. Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Paul August ☎ 05:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I shall refrain from voting on this measure for the time being since I did not vote in the original case. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Nor this. Charles Matthews 17:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Modification of above remedies

Alternative to the above two remedies; combines elements of both

The committee recognizes Giano's contributions to the encylopedia and also recognizes that he may have been "baited" to respond by other users; however, because of his continuing incivility and inappropriate responses, Giano ((Giano (talk · contribs), Giano II (talk · contribs) or subsequent accounts) is banned for one week. After the conclusion of the ban, he is placed on civility parole for one year; he may be blocked for 24 hours, or up to a week for repeated offenses, for any edit which three uninvolved administrators deem to be a personal attack or incivility. The block must be proposed and then affirmed by the three adminstrators at the administrators' noticeboard, and all blocks must be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano#Log of blocks and bans and noted on Giano's talk page.

Support:

1. Second choice Fred Bauder 21:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

   Second choice. James F. (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Recusing, per request. James F. (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

2. First choice. Dmcdevit·t 02:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
3. First choice. Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Paul August ☎ 05:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Nor this. Can we start from scratch? Charles Matthews 17:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm of a similar mind here - starting from scratch rather than patching on remedies seems to be the way to go, IMO. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Archives

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (extremely sparse, selective, and unofficial)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution