Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions - 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 Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:44, 5 March 2005 view sourceNetoholic (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users39,916 edits rvt. Do not remove other people's comments from this page.← Previous edit Revision as of 05:12, 5 March 2005 view source Neutrality (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators165,437 editsm Reverted edits by Netoholic to last version by NeutralityNext edit →
Line 109: Line 109:
::I agree entirely with my fellow primate. If the arbcomm wishes to defer any formal finding of fact until 172 returns, that's one thing. But there really must be some effective procedure to deal with his sysop bit until such time, given at least the theoretical possibility that his 'return' happen in the form of blocking or unblocking someone on a partial basis, applying page-protection without regard to procedure, etc. ] 00:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::I agree entirely with my fellow primate. If the arbcomm wishes to defer any formal finding of fact until 172 returns, that's one thing. But there really must be some effective procedure to deal with his sysop bit until such time, given at least the theoretical possibility that his 'return' happen in the form of blocking or unblocking someone on a partial basis, applying page-protection without regard to procedure, etc. ] 00:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


⚫ ::Given that Neutrality has called Netoholic an idiot, whist posting a message in favour of 172, I can't see how he can be considered impartial in this case. I presume that the technical distinction between "abstain" and "recuse" is that abstain would allow him to vote if it was accepted. Judging from the message on 172's talk page, Neutrality isn't, in this case. I also agree with Jni, above (] 13:53, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)).
⚫ :::I think Neutrality meant "abstain" to mean "I've seen the case, but I've not made up my mind right now whether to recuse or vote to accept or reject, but I'd like people to be aware that I am considering it and would appreciate input therefrom". Input that, indeed, he has now received. ] ] 15:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer if you'd recuse, based on . -- ] ] 03:12, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

: Request denied. You have no particular connection with this case, except bringing it. I'd only recuse if you were the respondent rather than the petitioner. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:04, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

:: Hubris.--] 06:03, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

::: If neutrality refuses to recuse, I think his abilities as an Arbitrator need to be brought into question. A more clear example of bias towards a case would be difficulty to come by. (] | ] | ]) 12:59, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

⚫ :: Given that Neutrality has called Netoholic an idiot, whist posting a message in favour of 172, I can't see how he can be considered impartial in this case. I presume that the technical distinction between "abstain" and "recuse" is that abstain would allow him to vote if it was accepted. Judging from the message on 172's talk page, Neutrality isn't, in this case. I also agree with Jni, above (] 13:53, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)).

⚫ ::: I think Neutrality meant "abstain" to mean "I've seen the case, but I've not made up my mind right now whether to recuse or vote to accept or reject, but I'd like people to be aware that I am considering it and would appreciate input therefrom". Input that, indeed, he has now received. ] ] 15:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

::::I have recused myself. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:12, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC) ::::I have recused myself. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:12, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)


Revision as of 05:12, 5 March 2005

Shortcut
  • ]
Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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 10 January 2025

The last step of dispute resolution is a request for 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.

Structure of this page

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. Important points:

  • Be brief. Put a quick list of the nature of the complaints. Place the request itself on this page, rather than a subpage, but if you need to, link to detailed evidence in the standard template format elsewhere.
  • You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against. You should confirm this by providing diffs of the notification at the bottom of your complaint.
  • Please sign and date at least your original submission with "~~~~."
  • New requests to the top, please.

New requests

When adding new requests, please give them an appropriate title as well as a subsection for arbitrator's votes.

User:Noah Peters

Questions for the Arbcom

  • Should permanent block from previous arbitration be lifted?
  • If block is lifted should any restrictions be place upon the account such as a prohibition of editing gay-related articles?
  • Should past criticisms of user be omitted on various talk pages since it is his legal name?

Considerations

  • User has vandalized gay-related articles.
  • User has had many confirmed sock puppets.
  • User has impersonated another user.
  • User has made un-civil remarks about multiple users.
  • User has employed covert techniques to manipulate votes on the Wiki.
  • User has made credible non-gay-related additions.
  • User wishes to reform
  • User has apologized for previous actions describing them an angry frustration.
  • User wishes that all criticisms mentioning his username which is also his legal name be deleted from Wiki.
  • This could possibly be done through opening an account with a mandate from the Arbcom to delete such text. This account would provide an easily accessible archive of past criticisms in its revision history if ever needed again.
  • User is impossible to ban as he uses university ip addresses.

My Personal Opinion

  • He is impossible to block. I believe we should continue dialogue with the user and require civility. Sine he has made worthwhile additions before I am in favor of lifting the blanket permanent block and instead only restrict his edits of gay-related articles. Apollomelos 01:29, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

  • Accept. User appears to wish to appeal the previously issued ban, which warrants a hearing. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:43, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

172

172 was the subject of a previous arbitration, which was closed on January 25, 2005.

Aggressive reverts

In the previous case, 172 was placed on a "one month parole to (a) revert only once per 24 hour period (b) give edit summaries when reverting any established user". I have found evidence that during the one month period, he has broken this parole requirement multiple times, and so is still be subject to that parole requirement by extension.

He has shown in the one month since this case closed, that he is still unable to avoid revert wars. He has also failed to consistently leave meaningful edit summaries (typically only section header or rollback "default" summaries).

Misuse of admin functions

Notice of this request has been given. -- Netoholic @ 17:42, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

So I should be punished for bringing history of Russia up to featured article status, right? Figures. All of these complaints are bogus, vindictive, and petty. 1) The disputes on history of Russia, the LA riots, and Communism have already been resolved, and involved no violations of the 3RR. 2) I was unblocking Gz when there was some ambiguity as to whether or not he was hard-banned. Since the most recent arbitration ruling, there has been no ambiguity, and I have not attempted to unblock Gz since that point. 3) The dispute over 195.70.48.242 was a two-way conflict between Fred Bauder and me that was resolved (after I gave up and let Fred win). 4) This is the first time anyone has complained about the deletion of a page like "beaurocrat." Netoholic is just hunting for resolved disputes in order to get rid of me. 172 17:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If the issue is the unblocking of the account (resulting from a misleading bad-faith report by Silverback--see comments by Dab on all the related pages-- not a 3RR violation), I will stop doing it. I said all that I'd needed to say on Talk:History of Russia already. I don't care about whether or not I'll be able to edit today and tomorrow; I frankly don't care at this point. Misplaced Pages is increasingly a social club with no regard for professional expertise, and I'm rapidly losing faith in this project. 172 19:21, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and BTW, this is coming out of nowhere-- I did not break the "parole" and ran into no one accusing me of doing so last month-- and Netoholic did not bother to go through prior steps in the dispute resolution process (e.g., waiting for consensus to develop on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, RfC). 172 22:18, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I suspect it was because few were aware of your parole conditions, combined with the fact that a) your edit summaries lack details and often fail to explicitely note when you're reverting and b) that you often follow-up your reverts quickly with a minor edit. I draw attention to these two edits to Communism - at 23:39, 2005 Feb 19 you fully revert to the 21:59, 2005 Feb 19 version and then at 21:42, 2005 Feb 20 you rollback. Off-hand, that is one example of you breaking the parole. From that edit, your parole was reset for one more month, which means your recent 3RR violation falls within it and resets the parole yet again. The point is that you don't seem to have followed through on the promises you made in the last Arbitration, and have compounded that by misusing your admin functions. -- Netoholic @ 23:32, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

User:172 stepped in to page-protect Global warming, citing "edit war" on the page protection log. (More accurately, User:Stirling Newberry seeking to unilaterally re-impose an earlier edit of his own, without any discussion at all; other editors had been having such discussions in the meantime.) However:

  • No explicit request for page protection was made;
  • User:172 protected the page less than five minutes after a Stirling Newberry revert;
  • No 'protected' tag was added to the page;
  • The page wasn't added to the list of protected pages.

And: all of the above has happened twice now, most recently while still himself apparently blocked. Regardless of 172's blocked status, this smacks of collusion with a party to a dispute, disregard for all procedure, and over-ready use of page-protection. There's further discussion of this at this page, as well as on the talk page of the article concerned. Alai 05:50, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I too believe that 172 has probably abused his admin powers (and has ceratinly caused a great deal of unnecessary trouble) by his protects to the global warming page (William M. Connolley 12:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)).
Rule 5 of Arbitration policy: jurisdiction says The Arbitrators will hear or not hear disputes according to the wishes of the community, where there is a consensus. I wish to add my voice to those urging the arbitrators to take on this case. I am satisfied that there is sufficient prima facie evidence to bring into question the extent to which the community can trust 172 to exercise his administrator powers in the interests of Misplaced Pages. With all due respect to arbitrator Ambi, 172 does not need his administrator powers to produce featured articles. Those powers are not prizes offered to good editors, as a reward for good editing, but as a sign that we trust the editor to perform day-to-day janitorial work without disrupting Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:08, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)) I don't know if this makes any difference, but 172 declares on his page that he has left wiki.

It shouldn't make any difference. This diff from his page in a passage he deleted indicates some thoughts he had about returning to assist in protecting his pages. Note the list of those he will miss. He has been willing to abuse his admin privileges for Stirling Newberry more than once in the past. It should be assumed that if he retains sysop privileges he may be tempted to do so in the future. I don't mind him staying on as a user with proper sanctions. But the arbitration committee should not be lulled into thinking this question is moot because he claims he "quit", and therefore leave his sysadmin privileges intact. His administrator privileges should be revoked for the above violations, and since his account is possibly going to be inactive, the privleges should be removed anyway as a precaution. Given his past behavior, the temptation to abuse the powers will be even greater when he no longer has a stake, since he isn't active anymore.--Silverback 23:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I mostly agree with Silverback. I must add that I find Grunt's "conditional acceptance" concept troublesome. It just allows the defendant to pick the best (for him) time for his own arbitration; presumably first nurturing some supporting sockpuppets or just waiting for people to forgot or for any opportunity to "game the system". Announcing to "quit" is a tactic often used by trolls. Especially admin abuse complaints should be handled immediately, the risk of having a potentially rogue sysop jumping in to cause trouble at some later time, when it makes the most disruption, is just too high. I'm speaking of the general case here, not implying that 172 is a troll or would resort to such tactics, although I'm not very confident in his ability to continue as a Misplaced Pages administrator given his disregard of various policies. jni 12:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree entirely with my fellow primate. If the arbcomm wishes to defer any formal finding of fact until 172 returns, that's one thing. But there really must be some effective procedure to deal with his sysop bit until such time, given at least the theoretical possibility that his 'return' happen in the form of blocking or unblocking someone on a partial basis, applying page-protection without regard to procedure, etc. Alai 00:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Given that Neutrality has called Netoholic an idiot, whist posting a message in favour of 172, I can't see how he can be considered impartial in this case. I presume that the technical distinction between "abstain" and "recuse" is that abstain would allow him to vote if it was accepted. Judging from the message on 172's talk page, Neutrality isn't, in this case. I also agree with Jni, above (William M. Connolley 13:53, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)).
I think Neutrality meant "abstain" to mean "I've seen the case, but I've not made up my mind right now whether to recuse or vote to accept or reject, but I'd like people to be aware that I am considering it and would appreciate input therefrom". Input that, indeed, he has now received. James F. (talk) 15:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have recused myself. Neutrality 04:12, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/1/4/0)

  • Recuse. I note that 172 has left and therefore there is no point in opening this case at the moment. I recommend acceptance conditional on the return of 172 - that is, create a case that will remain closed until, and if, 172 returns. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:52, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
  • Recuse. Fred Bauder 17:55, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject. There are some minor issues, but I can't see anything overly serious, particularly considering that 172 has had two massive articles (relating to these topics, too) featured in this period, which suggests to me that he is making an effort to reform. Ambi 04:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept, 172 has been accused of abusing admin powers. I'm pretty certain that the wikicommunity views abuse of admin powers as a serious matter. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 04:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept. ➥the Epopt 15:24, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Enhanced opinion: accept and judge now, with any penalties to commence upon his return (if he has indeed left) ➥the Epopt 18:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept. sannse (talk) 18:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Recuse. Neutrality 01:50, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept, though we may then put it on hold until 172 returns - David Gerard 18:05, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Recuse. Delirium 18:12, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Banned user request

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate way to submit this request. If not, please advise me of the proper channels.

JillandJack was recently determined to be most likely the same person as DW and other previously banned reincarnations. Less than 24 hours later, a new user with very few prior edits, Oirvine, edited Quebec sovereignty movement to reinsert many of J&J's disputed contributions. This went right down to the level of identical spelling errors, and yet it wasn't a simple cut-and-paste from the page history, because within a single edit, some portions of the article that weren't reverted came between parts that were. On the balance of evidence, I blocked Oirvine as well, but now I've received an e-mail from them stating that they believe they were blocked in error. I know that DW's past behaviour includes the creation of multiple identities, but I'm also willing to concede that I may have reacted in error to purely circumstantial evidence.

Can I request that the developers review User:Oirvine's IP and login against DW's past sockpuppets and advise me if my block was in order? I'm prepared to unblock the user and apologize if in fact I banned them wrongly. Thanks. Bearcat 03:13, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/1/0/4)

  • Other than listing a request on /Developer help needed, there's not much else we can do right now. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:26, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC) Reject; lack of a developer response and DG's argument below suggests we, the Arbcom, have absolutely no need to add new input to the matter. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 16:57, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
  • Concur with Grunt. Neutrality 16:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • If someone is imitating a banned user down to the bad edits and spelling errors, I suspect a block as a returned sockpuppet is very likely to stick. WP:AN/I is good for sanity checking on these matters - David Gerard 18:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with David Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 04:35, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • What David said ➥the Epopt 15:16, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with David. →Raul654 17:06, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Matters currently in Arbitration

/Template


Please also see Template:ArbComCases.

Archives

Category: