| Revision as of 21:09, 18 November 2012 view sourceCourcelles (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators434,776 edits →Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/1/2): tally← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:38, 18 November 2012 view source NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators83,665 edits →Youreallycan: removing as declinedNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}} | <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}} | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}} | ||
| == Youreallycan == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ''<font face="bold">]]</font> '''at''' 13:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{userlinks|Wikiwind}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{userlinks|Youreallycan}} | |||
| ;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| * | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| ;Declined arbitration requests: | |||
| * | |||
| * (Withdrawn) | |||
| === Statement by Wikiwind === | |||
| I think it is high time for Arbitration Committee to examine conduct of ]. His conduct has been discussed by the community in RFC/U and in dozens of AN and AN/I threads, but it usually ends up as stalemate or "no consensus for anything". I am aware of the recently declined request, but the problems with this user will not go away. The pattern is always the same: after AN/I discussion he usually promises to improve his conduct and not to repeat the behavior that brought him into trouble, but that does not last long and after 10-15 days he is back to his old ways. | |||
| His aggressive comments, personal attacks and attempts to discredit people's views based on personal traits often (if not always) have a clear intention to cause disruption on various noticeboards. The latest examples are his comments (now removed by user Kim Dent-Brown) on AN/I () where he tried to discredit several users by accusing them of having "massive homosexual edit focus". Some of the "accused" users (like ]) don't edit homosexuality and LGBT-related articles at all (at least not to a large extent). | |||
| I urge Arbitration Committee to take this case, because I think the issue will keep popping up. Thanks.--''<font face="bold">]]</font> 14:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @ Roger Davies: Community has failed to deal with it every time in the past, so it is reasonable to conclude that they will fail this time too. The primary reason why previous request for arbitration was declined is that both involved parties agreed to mutual interaction ban, not because community has "dealed with it". I suppose that both parties were afraid of the outcome of the full case (I could be wrong, of course). The problem with Youreallycan is not limited to his interaction with any specific editor, so interaction ban with one user can't solve anything. The pattern of his behavior is unchanged and includes personal and ad hominem attacks against those who disagree with him, the latest AN/I episode is just continuation of that trend. He was not mentioned at AN/I and discussion was not about him, but he came and immediately started making ad hominem attacks and spreading unfounded accusations against several users.--''<font face="bold">]]</font> 20:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @ Collect: Hypothetically speaking, let's suppose that Youreallycan is a victim of harassment of some users who wants him blocked and banned forever. The arbitration case is in his best interest, because truth will come out and those "harassers" will be sanctioned.--''<font face="bold">]]</font> 20:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by {Party 2} === | |||
| <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">]</font> 00:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Count Iblis === | |||
| I would be in favor of making a modified version of the "last chance conditions" that YouReallCan got from the community into an ArbCom motion. As I commented in the RFC some time ago, what you would likely see is that in case of problems, the community would not be able to enforce its own rules, partially because of polarization in the community, but also because YouReallyCan would have improved his behavior, so that the violations would not be severe enough to make his constructive supporters (who did support the RFC conclusions) willing to enforce the rules. The fact that the only measure that can be taken is a ban, doesn't help here either. ] (]) 16:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Collect === | |||
| Seems that every month the same issues are raised - without any actual reason for the iterated use of Wikiprocesses. I rather think it is getting to the point of ''harassment'' in some ways. He even had to undergo a ban attempt based on a "Joe Job" not all that long ago. ]. And some of those who sought the ban based on that "Joe Job" seem not to understand how pernicious ''that'' discussion was to Misplaced Pages. Time to stop beating the horse for at least until ''after'' Christmas. ] (]) 18:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @WW - A very unusual sort of argument that. Thus a (hypothetical) person who was wrongfully accused of a murder by a ''malicious person'' (Joe Job) should welcome a process which would eat up three months of his time or so? What an interesting concept of how justice should be arrived at, indeed. ] (]) 00:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Dennis Brown === | |||
| It is my opinion that the community is willing and capable of dealing with this singular issue and doesn't require arbitration at this time. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 19:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Anthonyhcole === | |||
| I share Dennis's view. The problem here seems to be simple ''ad hominem'', not insults, not attacks, just very poor rhetoric on both sides of the debate. --] (]) 19:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Rschen7754=== | |||
| By now I think I'm renowned for being liberal in what I bring to ArbCom, but if the last request I made was declined, then in reality this should be too, it seems premature. --''']]]''' 09:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Tarc === | |||
| So YRC is the new Malleus now, and we're going to be subject to whining on this board every time he rubs someone the wrong way with an impolitic comment? There's nothing to do here, and really the only problem with what he said was with the tone, not the substance. There are editors here who are very proactive and aggressive in pushing an LGBT agenda, just as there are liberal, conservative, Israeli, and Prem Rewat fan clubs here. Remind YRC that there are better ways to express one's opinion regarding POV-pushers, and let's move on. ] (]) 13:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| === Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/7/1/2) === | |||
| <small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small> | |||
| *'''Comment''' Awaiting further statements though it's only a few weeks since we declined the last request. I cannot speak for my colleagues but you'll probably need to produce better evidence of stuff that has happened between then and now, and also demonstrate how the community has failed to deal with it between then and now, if you wish to persuade us to take the case. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **@ Count Iblis: I'm not personally a great fan of either unpicking or goldplating community sanctions - especially by motion - so, for me, it is likely to be a simple choice of either accepting or declining a full case. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Agreed with Roger, is there new evidence of issues since we declined the last request? Waiting for more statements. ] (]) 17:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **After seeing the comments, I feel confident in voting to '''decline''' this case, barring new issues. ] (]) 20:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Agree with my colleagues above--let's see what's changed, if anything. ] (]) 18:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' as presented. The "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" links pre-date the previous ArbCom request, and the only thing new is a short exchange on AN/I. While I do feel there are elements in the request that appear to lead to an ArbCom case, the main element, that the community are unable to deal with the situation, appears to be missing. It has to be stressed that the Committee members are also members of the community, and the only difference in our decisions is that they are binding - we are not an alternative forum, nor are the decisions we are likely to make going to be magically superior or different to that of any other 15 experienced users in good standing. The Committee is to be used to resolve situations that the community are unable to. If we come in too early, then we may be inappropriately forcing a decision on someone which cannot be challenged or undone. While I understand the frustration of encountering a user having an unpleasant heated exchange on AN/I, the community dealt with that situation by removing those comments. Youreallycan is under community editing restrictions which if he breaks will result in a siteban. The community are capable of enforcing that sanction or adding further restrictions. ''']''' ''']''' 20:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline'''. Agree with my colleagues - there doesn't seem to be a case here. ] (]) 17:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' - Nothing new since last we discussed this. ] (]) 18:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline'''. Silk puts it well, especially that we're not "magically superior" :) The community has this, for now. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup><small>(<font color="#ff6600">]</font>)</small></sup> 18:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Recuse.''' ] ]] 19:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' per my colleagues above—but I would caution Youreallycan that someof your comments have raised concerns on this page before, as you are aware, and that you are well-advised to steer well clear of the type of comments that keep leading us here. ] (]) 20:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *Well, I think that unless things change, we're going to have to hear this case eventually, and voted to take the last one. But '''decline''' for now, there isn't really anything new here. ] 21:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:38, 18 November 2012
Requests for arbitration
Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
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 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motions| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 10 January 2025 |
| 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.
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.
General guidance
|
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.