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 07:30, 24 January 2013 view sourceTagremover (talk | contribs)4,797 edits →Statement by Tagremover← Previous edit Revision as of 07:44, 24 January 2013 view source Tagremover (talk | contribs)4,797 edits →Statement by TagremoverNext edit →
Line 56: Line 56:


::Decline: Can see it, wouldn't done if differently in most cases. ] (]) 07:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC) ::Decline: Can see it, wouldn't done if differently in most cases. ] (]) 07:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


As a decline of this case seems to be clear, '''i propose to close this case''' (withdraw of this request) as i am not interested in consuming anybodies time. Thank you very much. ] (]) 07:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


=== Statement by The Bushranger === === Statement by The Bushranger ===

Revision as of 07:44, 24 January 2013

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Tagremover disputes   22 January 2013 {{{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
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.

Tagremover disputes

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Tagremover

I am absolutely desperate. I have been the main editor mostly of technology related articles since many years, first as IP. As i am a scientist, i think my contributions mainly to articles were valuable. English is not my mother-language.

I had two blocks: One for edit-war at Fisheye lens, where the other editor was blocked, too: Somehow understandable.

A second recently: For Edit war/ tag removal at Superzoom, where a user requested a reference about the exact definition of the "Super": There is and never will be such an definition, as there is no clear definition for ship or boat, see Talk:Superzoom. I was blocked without getting heard: Without discussion. My reason: WP:Ignore all rules: to improve Misplaced Pages.

At recent incidents of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner i posted an original research on the talk page: to start an discussion. I used a bold language, as the consequences calculated by me were serious, and later events and analysts joined my results. But this was the main fault: Other editors regarded me as: Anti-Boeing.

I was taken to ANI: , done some article edits and posted detailed reasons, why 3 sentences should be changed. First sentence is solved, a second has a proposal.

Its got worse at ANI, and i see questionable valuations, even from admins. I have no intention that other parties get blocked. But i see a high probability i am blocked for questionable reasons and valuations.

Actual details at ANI ] and Talk:Boeing_787_Dreamliner.

I am sorry to occupy your time, but i see in this case a problem of minority editors.Where is help for editors if the majority of editors is somewhat biased?

If i am getting blocked or topic banned, i will leave Misplaced Pages for ever. Tagremover (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


@User:SilkTork: But thats exactly whats being disputed: Neutrality. Tagremover (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


Decline: Can see it, wouldn't done if differently in most cases. Tagremover (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


As a decline of this case seems to be clear, i propose to close this case (withdraw of this request) as i am not interested in consuming anybodies time. Thank you very much. Tagremover (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The Bushranger

It should be noted that my sole involvement in this dispute, to my knowledge, was a WP:BEANS caution to a different editor on the AN/I discussion. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Marteau

Several days ago, I stated that I "gave up" on the article in question due to Tagremover, and that is still the case, and as far as what happens to Tagremover (or to me, actually) from this point on, I really and quite honestly don't much care.

I did call Tagremover "insufferable" on the talk page and advised him to tighten up his prose because it was painful to read. When he said the article was biased but did not (at the time) give specific examples, I said he smeared the entire editing pool for the article (for allowing that to happen, was my intent, and I should have added). I stand by these words.

I've washed my hands of the article and Tagremover and actually care little what the outcome of this arbitration is. I am not "invested" in the article or what happens to him, and if I never get to edit it again because he remains, it will not bother me. I will, in any event, not edit any articles in which he participates because it would be, in my limited experience with him, a highly distasteful and unpleasant task and I don't edit here to find new ways of causing myself stress.

I honestly don't care if he stays or goes or if he is banned in some way, or if I am sanctioned for calling things as I see them on the talk page. I believe he is a liability to the encyclopedia, and if I had my druthers, I would choose to see him not participate, but quite honestly, I care very little what happens to him. I do however stand by everything I have done or said regarding him and the article.

If there is something I have not addressed, please let me know, I am more than willing to answer any direct queries. Marteau (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Andros 1337

I totally disagree with User:Tagremover's statements. He/she is simply abusing Misplaced Pages policy to impose his/her anti-Boeing POV onto the Boeing 787 article, making all of these disruptive requests to administrators to get his/her way. This seems like an obvious case of WP:POINT. ANDROSTALK 23:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Blackmane

I have no content dispute with this user and the only interactions we have had were on the ANI where they were reported. I made a few comments and suggestions is all. Blackmane (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Tagremover disputes: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/5/0/0>-Tagremover_disputes-2013-01-22T15:55:00.000Z">

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