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 SirFozzie (talk | contribs) at 05:44, 6 April 2010 (→Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/3/1/4)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:44, 6 April 2010 by SirFozzie (talk | contribs) (→Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/3/1/4))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
COI edits in respect of living individuals   27 March 2010 {{{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

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.


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.


COI edits in respect of living individuals

Initiated by Guy (Help!) at 15:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by JzG

An anonymous party posted an aggressive series of messages on Jimbo's talk page claiming that two people, Tim Lambert and John Quiggin, editing Misplaced Pages under their own names, were editing biographies in furtherance of off-wiki disputes as alluded to here .

I analysed the edits and summarised them at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/COI edit allegations#Editors and contended articles. Although IP99 continued fishing for problem edits and found a few at a new venue one of the individuals he'd named had made no edits at all to the originally stated to be the locus of dispute. It became apparent to me that IP99 has been carrying out a personal campaign against at least Lambert, e.g. - Special:Contributions/99.141.252.167 is almost all about Lambert or removing references to him from mainspace - something he failed to mention under his later IPs. while calling for action against activists, the IP appears to me to be an activist himself, and in calling for a rain of hellfire on the heads of people who have in some cases not edited the articles in question for years, he raises very much the prospect of an equal reaction to his own campaign against named and identifiable individuals via Misplaced Pages.

Example: user John Quiggin (who is John Quiggin) is cited as a source for a particular publication; Quiggin states that Lambert is a co-author but IP99 persistently removes Lambert's name because third-party sources do not identify him as co-author. That seems to me to be petty. There is no dispute that our user John Quiggin is the main credited author and we have no reason at all to dispute his own statement that Lambert is a co-author. Why go to such lengths to exclude the mere mention of a name?

I reviewed the edits about which the IP complained, most of which were long stale (dating back in one case to 2005) and the response to feedback, which in the case of Quiggin is reasonable, in the case of Lambert is robust but not beyond reason, and in the case of the IP is an outright denial that any issues exist other than with Lambert and Quiggin. Another article, John Lott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was thrown in late in the day, user Serenity is a SPA editing that article with a sympathetic POV; the subject is on record as using sockpuppets to boost his reputation in other areas, inviting the inevitable suspicion here.

Based on response to feedback and my judgment of the likely future problems from the three based on their willingness to accept feedback I made the proposals at . I believe that the hierarchy of problems puts Quiggin lowest, as an academic who has made common and elementary errors over the difference between Misplaced Pages and academic publishing, and who seems to have had no difficulty in accepting that; Lambert somewhere in the middle, as a blogger and activist with some issues accepting that his edits may be conflicted or inappropriate; and the IP at the top as a disruptive pursuer of an obvious vendetta per WP:BATTLE.

Some think that since the IP raised a problem, albeit in inflated terms and often years after the event and without any real effort to help the individuals concerned to self-correct, he should basically get a free pass on his own behaviour. I disagree and I'm not alone in that. Unfortunately at both venues of discussion the matter is stalled due to division along familiar factional lines and the usual argument back to the objective rightness or wrongness of what's being said, rather than focusing on the real issue of editorial behaviour as documented at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/COI edit allegations. I think it's fair that any further attempts to resolve this dispute will only result in further entrenchment, not breaking of the deadlock.

@Steve Smith: Yes. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
@Lar: Some of this is not climate change so not covered (tobacco, DDT and other issues are involved) Guy (Help!) 19:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

I'm not sure a case is necessary. Leaving aside the depressingly predictable input from climate-change warriors on both sides, there seems to be a fairly sound uninvolved-editor consensus in favor of Guy's proposed resolution here. I don't think we should create a precedent where every administrative action that touches on AGW has to go through ArbCom. Any administrative action against a partisan is bound to be met with vocal outrage from other partisans on the same side. It has ever been thus, and admins are supposed to be able to see past that and gauge actual, non-partisan community feedback on their actions. I think Guy has done that here; let's encourage reasonable administrative initiatives, because that's what the area needs. MastCell  01:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by John Quiggin

I think it's correct to say that this dispute is really about AGW, and, to a lesser extent, other science issues (notably tobacco and DDT/malaria). In editing these and other areas, including economic issues where my own views are somewhat distinct from the mainstream position, I've sought to apply WP:WEIGHT, which, in my interpretation, means giving most weight to the mainstream scientific view. To the extent that apparently authoritative sources have been presented as contrary to the mainstream view, I've investigated them, and, frequently found that they have substantial conflicts of interests (for example, undeclared financial links to the tobacco industry). I've tried to present this information about these sources in a neutral fashion in Misplaced Pages, and have also raised it in other venues (less neutrally, since I admit to having a very negative view of tobacco lobbyists).

I've been advised by Guy and others that this is not the right interpretation of Misplaced Pages policy. So, for the moment, at least, I'm leaving WP:BLP articles alone or raising suggestions in the talk page, rather than editing directly.

Meanwhile, though, the issue has been used as a basis for personal attacks, including off-wiki attacks by users who are self-identified partisans , and on-Wiki attacks by users who have obvious conflicts of interest themselves (people recruited on 'AGW sceptic' sites, who have engaged in Wiki canvassing on those same sites). .

I'm happy to accept that my interpretation of policy has been wrong, but I'm dismayed that I'm still being attacked for conflicts of interest based primarily on the fact that I have a substantial public profile and can therefore be identified with particular positions, while SPA partisans are being cheered on for attacking me.

Anyway, apologies if all this is tangential to the topic at hand - perhaps it will provide some background on my involvement here.


JQ (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by IP_User:99.X

There are a number of unsupported and unrelated accusations here from Jzg and Quiggin, many of which do not involve me in any way, shape, or form. None of Quiggin's "supporting refs" are my edits.

I'm accused of posting "aggressive" messages on Jimbo's talk page. Let's first recognize that Jimbo is a user quite capable of regulating his own personal talk page - then let's note that Jimbo found my concerns had merit and were on topic related to a discussion of BLP abuse which was then taking place on his user page.

Jzg then makes an accusation that, "It became apparent to me that IP99 has been carrying out a personal campaign against at least Lambert, e.g. - Special:Contributions/99.141.252.167 is almost all about Lambert or removing references to him from mainspace - something he failed to mention under his later IPs." This is patent nonsense. Not only did I directly link to that IP, and edits, in the very last direct conversation I had with Jzg prior to his filing here, it is also clearly found creating the discussion from which this is derived - and can be found here where I make clear notice of my ip changing. I have been asking Jzg now for weeks to make clear his concerns and link supporting ref's. It would seem there is a reason he speaks in general terms about unspecified things and doesn't link to supporting ref's. Personally, I'd prefer not to be sold off by an auctioneer taking phantom bids from the chandelier while creating the impression of drama where none exists.

As to the application of jet fuel drama from the AGW jerry can, my only edits to AGW related articles has been in support of using the term "climategate" on Misplaced Pages. I supported community members efforts and introduced links showing neutral use of the term from Mother Jones, Factcheck.org, Newsweek, etc, I then introduced supporting references from peer-reviewed academic journals which studied or discussed the cultural and political phenom.. To the argument that Misplaced Pages had a prohibition against the term -gate, I introduced supporting ref's to demonstrate that neither community consensus, practice or policy prohibit the term.

My editorial position on the subject was limited strictly to support the recognition of the term noted above to describe the political and cultural moments that arose from the confluence of events started by the CRU email incident coming so close to the Copenhagen conference and the resulting environment encompassed by what is referred to as climategate. The one thing it I argued it would not be: a review of climate science. Participation is not de-facto partisanship. In no way do my positions or civil engagement in well supported, referenced and reasonable discussion give a foundation to any of the general, un-specified and un-supported AGW mud that Jzg and Quiggin have sought to throw on me here in this new venue.

I was unaware that Quiggin & Lambert were even users here until well into a discussion at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. My criticism of Lambert & Quiggin has been well supported and factual. COI harms the project whether done to harm ones enemies or to promote and bolster ones personal projects - as in these examples in which Quiggin has created entire articles, and supported them, for his close co-workers at "Crooked Timber". .

This statement has been refactored by a clerk. For the full statement, please see here.

Statement by Lar

To Carcharoth, who asks why this hasn't been handled via the enforcement process: As far as I can tell, this has not been brought to the Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement page, unless I missed it. If it had been it probably would have been handled, and probably close to how Guy suggested at AN. But the admins that hang there don't tend to cruise other areas looking for things, they wait for reports to be filed. Is that the incorrect approach? Does ArbCom wish that mandate expanded? If so please clarify. That said, Guy's proposal at AN strikes me as a good approach and if ArbCom chooses to deal with this by motion I recommend adoption of it. ++Lar: t/c 13:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth: Thanks for the clarification, I too agree patrolling is not a good idea. I have suggested at JzG's talk that an enforcement request be made. ++Lar: t/c 16:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/3/1/4)

  • Awaiting statements (and considering whether to recuse), but am I right in thinking that this would be a pretty simples matter not requiring arbitration but for the AGW connection and the attendant polarization? Steve Smith (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that I must regretfully recuse. This is close enough to being a global warming proxy case that my recusal policy probably kicks in. As a general statement, I endorse MastCell's call for reasonable administrative initiatives, with the emphasis in this case being perhaps on "initiative". Steve Smith (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Awaiting statements, with the request that the statements focus on recent problems (i.e., since the editors in question first were advised of the concerns that have been expressed), if any, rather than primarily historical ones. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Again, in this area, I'm not sure that anything short of draconian measures taken by the Arbitration Committee (or, possibly, the Arbitration Committee allowing administrators to take draconian measures in this area), such as restricting all the "usual suspects" from the topic area to eliminate the disruption, will work here. I think everyone should just back away and stop trying to push Doomsday here. (this is what I think in the general area of GW, not specifically this case, but the fact we're seeing more and more cases get brought here in this area concerns me) Leaning towards accepting, with the caveats above, but waiting for more statements/follow ups. SirFozzie (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
After thinking it over for a week or so.. I'm going to decline for now, but I feel like I have to say I'm not hopeful that this area will stop coming here.. but this case is not a good way to handle it. SirFozzie (talk) 05:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Also looking for a bit more information, but as SirFozzie says, this seems to be a reoccurring issue and we may need to look at it again. Shell 19:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Accept; this isn't a new problem, nor is it likely to solve itself without — as SirFozzie says — draconian measures. The problem lies in carefully identifying what is the minimal set of such measures likely to bring the problem under control and that cannot be done without a case to examine the evidence. — Coren  16:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline (or deal with by motion). If partisans battling over this is preventing consensus from forming, then we can simply pass a motion banning those who are battling over this from editing the articles in question, and restricting them to the talk pages only. There is no reason to ban the IP editor from commenting on talk pages, just ban then from editing the articles. I am genuinely puzzled here as to why admins are holding off from enforcing things under the community-imposed article probation that applies to this area. Partisans battling at a noticeboard is not a reason to avoid admin actions. Simply explain clearly who you think the partisans are, discount their opinions, and assess the consensus of uninvolved editors. But don't try and assess who is involved or not - ask people themselves to state what they see as their own level of involvement when starting such a thread, and discount any opinions where people fail to state whether or not they are involved in the topic area (i.e. silence should be taken to mean people are involved and refusing to admit it). Oh, and any admin acting in this area should also state the level of involvement and history they have in this area - if people commenting and taking actions in this area cannot answer simple questions like: "do you edit a lot in this topic area?" or "do you find yourself involved in a lot of disputes in this topic area?", then you will just have the usual suspects rehashing the same old arguments. Carcharoth (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
    • To Lar: waiting for reports to be filed is the correct approach, but I would suggest someone does file a report at the page you indicated, as any resolution there is likely to be faster than any resolution here. Maybe ask Guy if he would consider refiling there? Hopefully Guy or whoever takes this on will take all the comments here into account (not just the ones they agree with). Carcharoth (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the clarification, Guy. I've looked at the link MastCell provided, and if it would be simpler to enact here what you proposed there, then I would be happy to propose something similar to that, but allowing the individual who is editing as an IP number to comment on talk pages. If you insist that the IP editor be banned from commenting on the relevant talk pages, a full case will probably be needed to make a case for that. A full case will probably also be needed if there is insufficient support among arbitrators for what I am proposing. Carcharoth (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment** Suggest Guy proceed with his proposal. I don't think we need a formal motion for that but if we do, let's post and vote quickly on it. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline, arbitration enforcement is a better venue at this point. Risker (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)