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 Wnt (talk | contribs) at 01:17, 2 August 2014 (→Civility). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:17, 2 August 2014 by Wnt (talk | contribs) (→Civility)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Civility   1 August 2014 {{{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.

Civility

Initiated by Tom (LT) (talk) at 23:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • AN/I:

Statement by LT910001

A user (Hell in a Bucket) posted a very inflammatory comment on Jimbo Wales' talk page (), which was then removed and re-added a number of times by Neotarf (), Lightbreather () and Tarc (). It's clear a number of users think that this does not warrant any form of disciplinary action (), "No. Get a sense of humour. " (), "That's a stretch and you know it" (edit), " is this shit really still being dragged out?" (edit summary) (Ryulong , ). This matter has not been dealt with by administrators.

Civility is one of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages (WP:CIVIL) and the WP:NPA policy quite clearly states "Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse." (WP:WIAPA).

Civility seems to be a neglected pillar and I believe the failure to enforce it is sanctioning rampant cursing, name-calling and other anti-social behaviors. One reason is because what constitutes 'uncivil' behaviour and disciplinary remedies have not been clearly outlined. I would request that ArbCom looks into this matter, and offers clear advice as to what constitutes civility and what remedies can be enforced by administrators. Misplaced Pages has its own set of rules, but I’d point out in actual workplaces some of these comments would probably already have prompted intervention or disciplinary action of some sort.

I have commented previously on AN/I and Jimbo Wales' talk page, but not interacted with this user to the best of my knowledge.

Statement by Ryulong

I'm not involved. Remove me from this request. I will have no part of this dramafest just because a handful of people have been angry at Eric Corbett for dropping the "C-word" in a discussion and the aftermath.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Cube lurker

The noted incident falls far below the need for arbitration. It's possible that there are person or people who could rightly have earned a short block for some of what occurred, but if no one's willing or no consensus could be achieved, so be it. If this is an attempt to open the door to a full scale omnibus civility action, it's not a good starting point IMO. --Cube lurker (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

While well meant, this request should be speedily refused. The matter is still open at AN/I, there is no reason to think that the community is unable to deal with it. I urge LT to withdraw, if they see this comment. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC).

This user will not be withdrawing this case request. It's clear in this case there is significant community disagreement on what constitutes "civility" and a "personal attack" and whether it should be enforced. This issue involves several venues, to date has not been effectively mediated, and there are a lack of enforcing administrators for a core WP policy. To me this issue is quite suitable for ArbCom clarification. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by MLauba

At some point, eventually, those agreeing that there are important civility issues that need addressing will have to choose their end goal: change, or retribution. The former will never be crafted at noticeboards or ArbCom. For the latter, this is the right place. MLauba 00:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Wnt

The editor in question did not appear to use the racist/sexist epithets to refer to other editors in that edit, and if he had it could be handled by administrators normally. The larger issue, of course, is that the community doesn't have a coherent vision about civility. The present WP:CIVILITY policy is what Hell in a Bucket would probably call a "manifesto", piled high with tips about avoiding incivility, do's and don'ts, all dribbling down to a paragraph that says that you basically won't get blocked for being uncivil but you might. Anything in it that has any real policy usefulness is a reference to other policies. The community has been discussing various proposals for dealing with this situation, and though it is unlikely this will lead to change, filing a test case here seems like forum shopping. Wnt (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Personal attacks: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0>-Civility">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)