Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Banning Policy II		1 April 2015	{{{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-llists.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.

Banning Policy II

Initiated by Hell in a Bucket (talk) at 18:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Involved parties

Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Swarm (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Fred Bauder (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

]
]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

]
]

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

Well I thought this was sortedin the banning policy case but apparently User:Swarm and User:Fred Bauder think it's ok to use discretion on banned users. The policies and finding have been pointed out and the response is that admin get to do what they want. I think that needs a admonishment at best or frankly a good desyopping. In case anyone is worried this was a borderline judgement if you see User:Saint Kohser you can see the evidence is there, there is no doubt who it is. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Swarm I'd run scared too if I hadn't read "2) When an editor's conduct is exceptionally disruptive or inappropriate, that user may be banned from editing Misplaced Pages. Banned editors are prohibited from editing Misplaced Pages in any way, from any account or anonymously, and all contributions made in defiance of a ban are subject to immediate removal. While users in good standing are permitted to restore content from banned users by taking ownership of that content, such restoration should be undertaken rarely and with extreme caution, as banned editors have already had to be removed for disruptive and problematic behavior. A user who nonetheless chooses to do so accepts full responsibility for the consequences of the material so restored." ] but I'm sure such things are beneath you as admin. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Holy fuck User:Swarm you must have missed this part of that small paragraph let me help you by bolding it. Banned editors are prohibited from editing Misplaced Pages in any way, from any account or anonymously Maybe it's just me not using common sense but leaving them unblocked lets them edit the encyclopedia, I must have missed that day in class where we don't block banned users or their socks. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Swarm

The relevant AN/I thread is at WP:ANI#Immediate block request of User:Saint Kohser. As evidenced there, Hell in a Bucket is disruptively restoring vandalism to articles that's being undone by the banned user who added it. This is insanity and HIAB deserves a whale for this one. The second paragraph of Misplaced Pages:Administrators states that administrators "are never required to use their tools". Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules states, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it." WP:BURO states, "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies." As I explained at ANI, if any administrator were to disagree with us they would be well within their rights to block the user in question, but attempting to punish us for not following a rule for the benefit of the encyclopedia is nothing short of utterly ridiculous and I won't defend myself against this absurdity further. Swarm 18:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Hell in a Bucket: None of that even remotely contradicts our well-reasoned justification for not blocking the user. Swarm 18:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@Hell in a Bucket: What part about being we're ignoring that is so difficult for you to understand? Swarm 18:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Fred Bauder

I plead common sense. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Spartaz

Is this an April Fools joke? Spartaz 18:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved WJBscribe

Blocking or not blocking in these circumstances is a judgment call and I can see how it could be argued either way. What I find totally unacceptable and inexcusable are the edits by Hell in a Bucket that reintroduced vandalism into the articles in question (e.g. , etc). Those actions damaged the encyclopedia. Whatever Hell in a Bucket may have thought, those edits were not supported by policy - if a banned user adds inappropriate content, then later reverts that addition, there is no justification whatsoever for reverting the removal only and leaving the problematic content in the article. WJBscribe (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

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

Banning Policy II: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0>-Banning_Policy_II">

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