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 04:42, 3 February 2010 view sourceAmorymeltzer (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Interface administrators, Oversighters, Administrators63,405 edits →David Irving Biography: Rejected, mathematically impossible for the case to be accepted← Previous edit Revision as of 04:45, 3 February 2010 view source Amorymeltzer (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Interface administrators, Oversighters, Administrators63,405 edits →Jéské Couriano: Rejected, mathematically impossible for the case to be acceptedNext edit →
Line 4: Line 4:
<br clear="all"/> <br clear="all"/>
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}} {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}}


== Jéské Couriano ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 22:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
*{{user|Mbz1}}, ''filing party''
*{{admin|Jéské Couriano}}

<!-- 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. -->
*
*Diff. 2

;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
*Link 1
*Link 2
=== Statement by Mbz1 ===
On January 25/26 I was the subject by 5+ hours of bulling and harassment by administrator Jéské Couriano and some other users. During those 5+ hours administrator Jéské Couriano never assumed a good faith toward me.

Here are few differences:

#
#
#
#
#]
#
The last one is a bran new threat for me filing the arbitration request.

(everywhere highlighted by me)
Administrators work with people. People cannot be undeleted or restored as images or articles could. 5+ hours of an absolutely unwarranted harassment, PA, treating with blocks and bulling cannot be undone or overwritten with an apology. Jéské Couriano cannot be an administrator.

Jéské Couriano explains why he believed CU was justified in my case "If there's behavioral evidence that an account is compromised (i.e. a sudden and radical change in editing pattern) then it's not fishing to ask a CU to look into it." Let's apply the same rules to administrator Jéské Couriano own behavior. I am sure that Jéské Couriano is Jéské Couriano, the account was not compromised, which means that few hours of harassing and bulling me was usual "editing pattern" of the administrator, and I could provide quite a few differences to prove it. IMO a behavior like this one even on a single occasion is one time too many. I assure you that the request I filed has nothing to do with revenge. The only purpose of filing it is preventing other users to be bullied and harassed by Jéské Couriano under the cover of his administrator-ship. Because, and I hope you'd agree with me, it is one matter being harassed by a regular user, and absolutely different being harassed by an administrator. I'm asking you to consider the case please.

I realize that everybody including administrators :) are entitled to make mistakes, even such a silly mistakes as claiming me being a sock of Israelbeach, Israelbeach, who speaks not only native, but absolutely perfect English, while my own English is anything, but :( My request here is not about mistakes Jéské Couriano has made, but about incivility, bulling and harassing. I hope that everybody would agree with me that no matter what an administrator thinks about a user, he/she is never entitled to be uncivil. Being uncivil is not a mistake, it is an of the administrator,the edit pattern that nobody, and administrators especially, are entitled to.

Response to Steve Smith comment. According to of ] "Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute will be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified"." I have no dispute with administrator Jéské Couriano, I have absolutely nothing against him personally, but I believe that somebody, who's using such language should not be an administrator. That's why I've brought the matter here.--] (]) 21:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Jehochman. It is very nice of you do not think I am a sock! Thank you. I have no conflict with administrator Jéské Couriano, and I will not drop this request. I will let it to stand its course because I rather strongly believe that a user, who is assuming bad faith over and over again, whose language is abusing to other users should not be an administrator.--] (]) 23:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Everybody, I did move on. I have no anger toward Jéské Couriano at all, and I have no dispute with him. I repeat that this request has nothing to do with revenge, but I honestly believe that the user cannot be an administrator.--] (]) 02:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

To Steve Smith. 5+ hours of PA, assuming a bad faith and harassment cannot be called "an isolated incident" even on its own. IMO the administrators, who are working with people should try to do their job the way that no apologies would have been needed later on. Harm that is done to people cannot be undone by an apology. Requesting SPI on me was a mistake, threatening me with that was an abuse. Once again I have no dispute with Jéské Couriano, but I know that, if my request is declined (as I am sure it will be), it would not be the last time you'd hear about administrator Jéské Couriano's conduct.--] (]) 15:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just re-read '''"Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful], civil manner in their interactions with others"'''. Are they ?--] (]) 22:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

@SirFozzie, If you've read the rules of submitting the request you would have seen that rule "State your request in 500 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. You are trying to show the Arbitrators that there is a dispute requiring their intervention; '''you are not trying to prove your case at this time.'''". @SirFozzie, if you have looked at the links provided by me and Avenue, you would have seen a pattern, but I assume you did not bother to hit the links, did you, chummer?

Okay, I see my request helped to establish three very important things:

#"The filing party (In other words me) does not look like a sock" a very thoughtful conclusion by Jehochman. I feel so much better already.
#I've just learned a new, funny word, and realized that to call my fellow Wikimedians "chummer" is perfectly alright.
#I understood that if one wants to harass and to bully other users, to assume bad faith toward users, and do not get neither warned nor blocked for doing so, the best way to proceed is to became a Misplaced Pages administrator '''before''' going on with harassment and bulling.

With that I '''withdraw my request'''. I knew there is no use to file it from the very beginning. I kind of thought that I own it to other people, who one day could find themselves in a similar situation that I was on January 25/26. Well, I've done what I could.--] (]) 03:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

@Xeno, last night I provided some new evidences at SirFozzie talk page . I was sure that after reading my new evidences SirFozzie would change his decline vote because in his decline reason he said "Show us the pattern of repeated misuse of the tools, and the unwillingness to learn from them, and we'll talk." Honestly I was more than surprised, when instead I've got this response: "It shows he has been uncivil, or a little over the top yes, but not anything with regards to administrative tools". Probably I am too naive, but I kind of thought that working with people is the most important tool an administrator gets with his position, and that tool can never be misused. Do you still believe I should file RFC? What for? According to the member of the Arbitration Committee the admin did nothing wrong "with regards to administrative tools" . Oh, well...--] (]) 16:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

@Xeno, thank you for responding my comment. I actually posted it more for the record than to get a response, but because you responded, I'd like to ask you to clarify something for me. English is not my first language, and sometimes it is hard for me to understand what the person, who is communicating with me really means. For example, you said "if there is an ongoing persistent pattern of incivility" My question is about the using of the word "if". I understood your "if" that way that you personally are not sure that there is "ongoing persistent pattern of incivility" or my understanding of your statement is wrong?--] (]) 16:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

@Xeno, thank you for responding my question. If nothing else at least I learned some English in process of this request :) I would like to ask everybody, who commented here or have read this request to answer one question, which is: What do you think would have happened to a user (not an admin), who would be using such language and and , and again? I tend to believe that the user would have been blocked over, and over, and over again, and I doubt that a blocking admin would have been asked to go through dispute resolution before imposing the block. I do not ask you to respond my question here, rather just to think about it, and to respond it to yourself.
Thank you for your comments, and your time, everybody.--] (]) 17:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Jéské Couriano ===
I have already for this; the revision is in the deleted edit history on her talk page and thus is admin access only, unfortunately. Mbz1 needs to drop it, and I urge the Committee to reject this request as moot. —<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 23:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
:That last diff you just posted cannot be construed, in any way, as a threat, Mbz1. —<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 00:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
::Mbz1, the Sbs101 wasn't "me assuming bad faith" as I got involved ''after'' the user was blocked and practically everyone, ''including'' CheckUsers, initially thought that he ''was'' a sockpuppet. In fact, when proof otherwise came out, I unblocked him. —<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 01:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
:::Jehochman) I did apologize for it and was kinda stunned to see how it played out afterwards, including this arbitration request. —<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 22:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
::::DuncanHill) How can that be construed a threat? I merely noted that she's just seeking sanctions against me rather than going thru dispute resolution. —<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 00:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::Avenue) Wrong on that count. While it does have homosexual connotations, it's not an epithet (contrast "faggot" or "breeder") or "accusation" of homosexuality, and in either case it also means "friend" (in the same way "chum" does). —<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 06:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Jehochman ===

<s>The filing party does not look like a sock. Generally it is best not to threaten users with any process like Checkuser. If process is needed, just do it without threats. Also, calling a user a troll is invariably unhelpful. If they aren't, you've unjustly attacked them, and if they are, you've given them troll-glee by showing that you can be baited. I believe the involved parties should walk away from this conflict and chalk it up to lessons learned.</s> There is no need to force any apology, or to have arbitration. Simply drop it. If anybody refuses, come see me and I'll see what else can be done to prevent further disruption or abuse. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

: @Mbz1: If you're going to be snarky towards me, I'm not going out of my way to do you any favors. Above comments struck accordingly. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

===Comment by DuncanHill===
The comment in the 6th diff provided by the filer is, when made by an admin, a clear threat and wholly inappropriate as a response to a notification of a request for case. ] (]) 00:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Avenue===
I concur with Jehochman in hoping that the parties will move on and not rehash the January 25/26 AN/I drama. However, I think there is a serious issue here with how Jéské Couriano chooses to communicate.

On Jéské's talk page, there are several posts from people objecting to him addressing people as "chummer" and similar Shadowrun lingo, or advising him against it. Despite this, he has at the top of the page saying "If you are here to complain about my use of Shadowspeak (specifically chummer), please do not waste your fingers. I will not cease using it." Note that he addressed Mbz1 as "Chummliechen" while accusing her of trolling; see her .

If someone persistently and unrepentantly addresses other editors with sarcastic claims of friendship, they seem to enjoy being hurtful, and I do not think it is appropriate for them to remain an admin.

<s>("Chummer" is also apparently an accusation of homosexuality, which makes this variant even less appropriate.)</s>

-- ] (]) 01:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

:Response to SirFozzie's comment:
::I had never come across "chummer" until a week ago, so I don't know whether its meaning is closest to "friend", "buddy", "pal" or whatever. But that doesn't matter. The main point is that Jéské uses the term on people he is in active conflict with, i.e. editors who are definitely not his friends. He's clearly being sarcastic. Because he knows his target will probably not immediately understand the term, an innocent explanation (that he might be trying to defuse the situation by actually being friendly) doesn't wash. And he continues to do this consciously, even defiantly, after several uninvolved admins have told him it's unwise (at AN/I and elsewhere).
::Admittedly he doesn't use the term much in actual block logs (I only saw one instance in the last month, along with 1 "fuck <username>", 1 "wankers", 2 "git"s, and various other terms of endearment), but I think it is also inappropriate when discussing whether to block someone. -- ] (]) 14:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

:@Xeno: Good point. And now that I see SirFozzie's edit summary, I think I probably misinterpreted his comment, thinking it was directed at me when it was not. Sorry for the unnecessary repetition. -- ] (]) 15:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Xeno===
This request is premature as evidenced by the "prior steps in dispute resolution" section - which links to a diff by the named party?! ] remains redlinked. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 15:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

:@Avenue - an RFC would be a more appropriate venue if concerns linger about his use of slang terms. If it is widely held that he should modify his approach, and he doesn't, then at least the prior steps in dispute resolution would have been attempted. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 14:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

:@Mbz1 - yes, if there is an ongoing persistent pattern of incivility then you should file an RFC so that the community-at-large can provide scrutiny and offer constructive criticism as to how Jeske might modify his approach to administration, and editing generally. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 16:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

:@Mbz1, the "if" is part of an "if, then" construction, and it can be expanded further: "'''if''' (there is a problem) '''then''' (file an RFC) '''if''' (the user does not take the community's advice on board) '''then''' (file a request for arbitration)". An important step was skipped there. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 17:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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

=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0) ===
*'''Comment''' - Is there a reason that an ] hasn't been attempted here? ] (]) 20:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
:*'''Decline''' - If this was an isolated incident, Jeske's apologized and it would be best for all to move on. If it was part of some pattern of inappropriate behaviour, that should be fleshed out in earlier steps of dispute resolution. ] (]) 14:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
*'''Decline''', try Requests for Comments. It sounds concerning but not serious enough to open an arbitration case outright. - ] 02:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' One mistake does not a pattern make. Show us the pattern of repeated misuse of the tools, and the unwillingness to learn from them, and we'll talk. ] (]) 02:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
::Also, a comment.. I do not consider the phrase chummer to be an insult, because I happen to know the version where it means "friend", so, unless you're extrapolating something here, I do not see any issue there. ] (]) 06:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' Nothing so far indicates that there is an ongoing problem. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' at this time, as prior steps in dispute resolution should be tried first. Having said that, I hope that Jeske Couriano takes to heart that there are concerns about his manner of communicating. ] (]) 17:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' in favor of dispute resolution. ] (]) 22:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:45, 3 February 2010

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

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.