Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Case: 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 | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:26, 5 June 2009 view sourceFloNight (talk | contribs)Administrators20,015 edits →Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0): ; decline← Previous edit Revision as of 18:02, 5 June 2009 view source Tiptoety (talk | contribs)47,300 edits →Allegations of administrator misconduct: RejectedNext edit →
Line 4: Line 4:
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}} {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}}



== Allegations of administrator misconduct ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 05:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|Some guy}}, ''filing party''
*{{admin|Causa sui}}

<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
* - Notice to Casua sui


;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->
*]
*]

=== Statement by Some guy ===
<s>I feel that Causa Sui has demonstrated administrator misconduct by issuing a semi-page-protection inappropriately and directly contrary to page protection policy, and issuing an excessively long ban in a punitive manner. I have attempted to resolve this dispute through discussion and Request for Comment but complexity of policy and the dispute system in general is impeding the process and causing me extreme frustration which is impeding my ability to act calmy. I have, for example, been criticized for "wikilawyering", so I feel this is an appropriate venue since "wikilawyering" is apparently more acceptable here. I have been criticized for following Casua Sui's advice in posting at ]; I have been criticized and mocked for following dispute resolution step ], and I was even criticized for following the discussion guidelines on the RfC3 template. I feel that these criticisms of my attempts to follow policy significantly impact this situation and make ArbCom most appropriate. I hope I am understanding this system well enough to fill this out correctly.</s>
*<small>''Please note that {{user2|Some guy}} has been blocked for harassment; a block request is pending. Adding this notice at the request of the blocked user. ] &#124; ] 06:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)</small>
<s>
''Additional notes regarding arbitrator decisions:'''
*I was blocked for filing this request, so I was not block-dodging when I filed it.
*I feel the RfC was severely compromised by inadmissable complaints against my behavior (again following policy, admin advice, etc) which created an unfair bias.
*Most importantly, whenever I specifically address a policy and specifically show an action (page protection) has been absolutely contradictory with policy, nobody even responds to that complaint. I cite policy and other people say "wikilawyering", the title of an essay ''which is allowed to trump policy''. Nobody els cites policy at all. Why do we have policy? How do we judge actions if policy is inadmissible? Should there just be one policy page that says "use subjective common sense"? I have nothing more to say. ] (]) 19:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
</s>

'''I withdraw my request''' and apologize for wasting the committee's time. ] (]) 23:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by Causa Sui ===
I have nothing to add to my statement at ]. For your convenience, and because it is unlikely that the RFC will be certified, I have reproduced it below. ] ] 05:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Facts as I have seen them:

#As this RfC was being drafted, my username changed to {{admin|causa sui}}. I am the topic of this RFC.
#In the course of routine operation at ], I came across this request by {{user|Straight_Edge_PXK}} that his talk page be indefinitely semi-protected due to harassment by IPs.
#I semi-protected the user talk page with a 2 week duration until the issue could be sorted out.
#In that thread, the IP user {{vandal| 69.105.172.180}} began to respond in a harassing manner, which (in combination with a glance at his talk page) indicated that the claims of harassment were justified.
#In response, I issued a 1-week block to the IP user in question.
#The IP user demanded that I unblock him with the threat that if I didn't, he would "log into my Misplaced Pages account and I will fight both your block and your page protection...".
#He then submitted three {{tl|unblock}} requests ( ), and each was declined by independent administrators ( ).
#Now, this RFC is part of the execution of that threat. But the user went further than that. Now logged is as {{user|Some guy}}, he made posts to the blocking policy page , the protection policy page , the conflict of interest policy page fishing for opinions that might incriminate me. He also appealed to Jimbo's talk page .
#In retrospect, I decided that the semi-protection of the user talk page was excessive at two weeks and I shortened it manually. I did not shorten the block because the IP user was continuing to make threats of harassment, this time directed at me instead of his original target.

I have nothing else to say about this. The facts speak for themselves.

=== Statement by uninvolved ] ===
Doesn't appear to be ripe for arbitration yet; recommend rejection so the parties can pursue the earlier phases of dispute resolution first. ] (]) 08:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.''

:As I'm a party in this dispute (and I haven't been active as a clerk for a very long time anyway), I'm recused here. ] ] 05:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/7/0/0) ===
*'''Decline'''. I see no evidence of administrator misconduct or abuse, much less a pattern warranting arbitration. I would recommend to the filing party that he or she completely drop this matter, which appears to have become something of a fixation, and do something more useful if he or she wishes to continue with this project. It is quite arguable that the proper course of action here would be to summarily reject and delete this request as having been filed by a user evading a block, but it may be more expedient to allow the request to be voted through to the inevitable decline now, rather than have it return to us or otherwise pursued when the block expires. ] (]) 09:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
**The comment regarding block evasion is based on the fact that the filing party edited under his or her account name while the underlying IP was still blocked. More important, however, if that this still appears to be at best a minor misunderstanding that has escalated disproportionally. I still recommend dropping the matter and moving on from it. ] (]) 21:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
* '''Decline''', there has been unnecessary hostility and unhelpful escalation here, by both sides, but this does not warrant arbitration. It should not surprise ] that suggested to an admin that the editor behind that IP was not in the best of moods, resulting in heavy use of the page protection and block buttons. The prevailing opinion at the RFC is that the administrator has not acted out of line with norms. All of the individual actions are within reason on their own, however I can empathise with ] that the pattern isn't pretty. From what I am over at ], it looks like an unblock could be negotiated. The RFC is not likely to be certified, but I have a lingering concern that IP editors regularly encounter semi-protection to prevent them from discussing a matter with another editor. Sometimes it is warranted; other times it isnt. I went looking for a WikiProject dedicated to our anon friends, and all I could find was one anon ironically in ]. Perhaps some guy, either ] or another guy or gal, would like to rally our anons together to collaborate on an RFC to share their experiences. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 10:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
*'''Decline''': I don't see an issue here for arbitration. Parties should pursue other avenues. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 10:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
*'''Decline''': per all preceding. ] (] '''·''' ]) 10:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''. Per Newyorkbrad. --] (]) 22:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' and motion to archive. ] 16:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' per above. ]] 17:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


== Intel Corp - Butterfly Effect of Lawsuits == == Intel Corp - Butterfly Effect of Lawsuits ==

Revision as of 18:02, 5 June 2009

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Intel Corp - Butterfly Effect of Lawsuits   3 June 2009 {{{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 10 January 2025

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.


Intel Corp - Butterfly Effect of Lawsuits

Initiated by --68.111.167.64 (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC) 68.111.167.64 (talk) at 01:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Aboutmovies#Party_at_ArbCom
http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Bigger_digger#Party_at_ArbCom

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Intel_Corporation#History_of_crippling_competitors_with_legal_bills
(notice there are 3 sections to this dispute, each labeled part 1, 2, and 3. Sections 2 and 3 contain the bulk of the debate about this particular line, but you can read section 1 for the building up to it, if you want)
Third opinion: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Third_opinion&oldid=288210719 Note by "68.111.167.64": Pretty sure hawks of the Intel article gave the third opinion, because I warned them of it long before I requested it, and could make no logical sense of their reasoning.

Statement by 68.111.167.64

The last line (bold) in the following paragraph is being disputed: "During the time of the 386 CPU, Intel partook in suing companies that tried to develop chips that competed with the 386. The lawsuits were noted to significantly hamper or even cripple the competition with legal bills, even if Intel lost the suits. It is unknown how the technology market of today would be structured exactly if those competing chip companies had survived beyond Intel's lawsuits."
The only issue is that I can't cite this last line, but, as carefully explained in the discussion, it's not a "true or false" claim; it's just a call-to-insight on the naturally consequent SUM of what the reader already assumes, and NOBODY even challenges that. They say they just want it verifiable, for reasons unknown. (and it's impossible to find a source for something like this) I speculate (just speculate) that they are Intel investors, since they attack the line without an accusation of misinformation: it's just a blank, completely unexplained attack where they won't say WHY they don't like it (they even admit they don't challenge the line's message), which I say is evidence that 1) the line is not even subjective or open to debate about its message, and 2) the editors aren't to be considered valid "objectors", because their motives are unexplained and secret (they say it's just because "we don't know, because nobody has cited it". But I think the line's message, while obviously true to the core, is also crucially important for the reader to have in mind, for insight behind the entire shaping of today's technology world. Thus it's FAR from trivial, and yet too simple (and unchallenged in its message) to need citation. That, and it's not a "claim". It's a call-to-insight on what you already assume.

Statement by Aboutmovies

This is basically a case where the above IP editor inserted text that does not pass policies/guidelines and they have been told this by myself, and through three other editors that came via the 3rd opinion requested by the IP editor. There really is no dispute, its just one person railing against the Misplaced Pages machine who is forum shopping until they get the result they want. This is not ArbCom material, and at the most it calls for an RFC, but all is really a waste of time as the community is clearly against the text in the form it is presented. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Bigger digger

This is a content dispute that doesn't need the attention of ArbCom. I offered the WP:3O, having taken it from the project page here. It was the third third opinion I had offered that day and I reject the accusation that I might be a hawk, it would be nice if the IP editor could assume good faith in those who disagree with him. I keep a list of my third opinions and assumed this issue was finished as consensus was quite clear.

Finally, insufficient steps in the process of WP:Dispute resolution have been taken. Discussion on the talk page, request a third opinion and then an ArbCom case is too much too soon. I will suggest to the IP editor that they go to WP:Editor assistance. Bigger digger (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
There's clearly no way this is being accepted at this point; I'd leave it up for a day or two so all parties are aware, but then archive it. Hersfold 03:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/9/0/0)

  1. "Bill Gates Speaks", page 29. ISBN 0471401692, ISBN 9780471401698
  2. "Bill Gates Speaks", page 29. ISBN 0471401692, ISBN 9780471401698