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 21:28, 15 September 2004 view sourceJdforrester (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators21,245 edits →Rejected requests: Gene Poole vs. Gzornenplatz rejected.← Previous edit Revision as of 21:28, 15 September 2004 view source Jdforrester (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators21,245 edits →[] vs. []: Case rejectedNext edit →
Line 60: Line 60:
: My explanation is simple: I did intend the "etc.", but not the "16". I was goofing with my edits - I did not realize that I had pressed "save page" with the "16" still in my text. Under no conditions would I think that changing that number could have been gotten away with. Had I noticed that my goofing resulted in the "16" actually getting posted, I would have deleted it myself. This is why I say it was a "an inadvertant error". It definately was inadvertant and it was an error. I am not saying that I wasn't goofing around, what I am saying is that I did not realize that the "16" had actually been saved. It really is that simple. And this is why I contend it was an error. Having said that, and listening to myself, I can see that goofing around was also wrong. I apologize. ] ] ]] 20:04, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC) : My explanation is simple: I did intend the "etc.", but not the "16". I was goofing with my edits - I did not realize that I had pressed "save page" with the "16" still in my text. Under no conditions would I think that changing that number could have been gotten away with. Had I noticed that my goofing resulted in the "16" actually getting posted, I would have deleted it myself. This is why I say it was a "an inadvertant error". It definately was inadvertant and it was an error. I am not saying that I wasn't goofing around, what I am saying is that I did not realize that the "16" had actually been saved. It really is that simple. And this is why I contend it was an error. Having said that, and listening to myself, I can see that goofing around was also wrong. I apologize. ] ] ]] 20:04, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


===] vs. ]===
I am requesting arbitration regarding Gene Poole's removal of an accuracy dispute notice on ]. The talk page shows that several users have disputed the accuracy of that article, but all attempts at fixing the article have been reverted by Gene Poole and like-minded users. Gene Poole has already rejected mediation.] 14:13, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
:I want to extend this arbitration to a dispute on ]. Discussion on ] has resulted in personal attacks on his part. On the same page he has refused mediation. His general abusive tone, for which there are plenty of examples on the various ]-related discussion pages, should be also examined. He has now even listed me on ] - it seems to be another standard procedure for him to list people who he has content disputes with as vandals. ] 10:03, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)


====Response from ]====

I will simply repeat my previous comments on this matter: ] has initiated this action on blatantly spurious grounds. He/she has a very obvious axe to grind when it comes to anything to do with any combination of myself and micronations, and is seeking to bring that to the attention of as many people as he he/she feels may be sympathetic to his/her "cause" as possible. ] has waged a long, active and ultimately unsuccessful campaign to modify, delete and then keep deleted the ] article, and to delete all references to the Empire of Atlantium from the ] article. Part of this campaign has I believe, involved practises that may warrant further investigation by administrators with the ability to trace IP addresses. It is no coincidence that ]'s attentions have now shifted to the related subject of ] - which he/she apears to feel is unworthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages unless presented in a derogatory manner in accordance with his/her widely-circulated POV on the subject of micronations generally. ] has had as much opportunity as any other editor to post comments to the relevant talk page, and implement any changes to the alleged "factual inaccuracies" within the article that appear to cause him/her such grief, but has elected not to do so - instead limiting him/herself to making vague accusations about "reversions" by myself and unnamed others. Clearly this editor cannot grasp the concept that those who disagree with his/her opinions on subjects he/she finds disagreeable have as much right to propose content changes as he/she does himself. He/she also conveniently overlooks the fact that significant re-writing of the article has been undertaken by a consensus of multiple individuals over a long period - and that most, if not all of the "reversions" relating to this article are in fact content restorations resulting from vandalism by ] - who as we are all aware was eventually banned for abuse of community standards. --] 21:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

====Comments and votes by arbitrators (0/4/0/1)====
# <s>Accept ] 13:01, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)</s> Reject, case was not referred by the Mediation committee. ] 14:00, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
# Reject. When we say "try Mediation first", we mean it not "as an excuse for not handling cases", but at the more general "try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process first". It's in your best interests, as well as the overall Misplaced Pages. Try step 0 first. ] ] 14:45, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
# Reject. I agree with James F. -- no real attempt has been made to resolve this dispute. Furthermore, I see no evidence that Gzomenplatz's marking of the article as disputed was followed with a list of objections or disputes being posted to the talk page. We are not here to take the place of everyone's common sense and ability to collaborate -- if you dispute the article, make plain on the talk page what you dispute. If you feel your notices are unfairly reverted, talk to the person you're upset with, then post a request for comment, then sincerely seek mediation. The AC isn't designed to handle every little personality conflict, and at this stage I see no grounds for taking this one. ] 20:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
# Reject, as complainant appears not to have used the talk page. Yes, there has been past discussion on the talk page, but I see none on the specific question of whether the disclaimer should be "totally disputed" or "neutrality disputed". ] 22:27, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
# Reject -- or rather, fold into Atlantium dispute above. --] 00:45, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

====Comments regarding arbitrator's votes and comments====
Guys, keep in mind that ]'s request for arbitration with ] is a separate request than ]'s and my request for arbitration. ] 21:19, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You're proving my point, you're obviously going to any length to reject a case which you don't have a personal interest in. I tried mediation, he rejected. I talked to him before, to no effect. Plenty of other people have been involved in the Sealand dispute, with no solution in sight. You are in effect telling me to emulate his methods and revert myself. I just suspect that if I were to do this and things would escalate (a permanent state of edit war alternating with page protection), you would initiate arbitration yourself and then assign equal blame to me, even though I tried everything to avoid this. Shame on you. ] 15:23, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

: Lovely rant. However:
:# If I had a "personal interest" in a dispute, I would be obligated to recurse myself.
:# There is not a single edit made by you to ] of the ] article.
:# Similarly, there is not a single edit made by you to ], nor any by he on yours.
:# Indeed, the sole apparent location of your claimed attempts to talk to Gene Poole is in the terse summaries of edits made to the article in question - all 3 of them.
:# The wording of your Mediation request made very clear your contempt for fellow editors.
:# Arbitrators aren't a police force - we cannot "initiate rbitration".
: I'm sure I could go on.
: I'm not in any way condoning edit wars (of course not); I'm suggesting that you follow the guidelines linked to from the top of this page (they're ], if you can't be bothered to look) &mdash; a lot of people have poured considerable time and effort, not to mention vast experience with such matters of differing points of view over articles, into its crafting, and they might just know what they're on about.
: ] ] 17:21, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
::1. Obviously, a personal interest is not necessarily provable, so the theoretical obligation to recuse doesn't help. It may just be, for example, that Fred Bauder happens to agree with VeryVerily's POV about George W. Bush and therefore is not really interested in stopping his reversions, even though he (Fred) has not been involved in editing the page himself. 2. My edit summaries were entirely sufficient - I don't have to repeat further what others have already repeated over and over. The issue here is nothing more than that I want to add a dispute tag - I've already given up on correcting the content of that article, considering the experience of previous editors. 3. I do have a contempt for POV editors and for arbitrators who do nothing to stop them while real, good editors are leaving Misplaced Pages left and right. 4. Initiate or not, the point is you would accept anyone's request for arbitration if an acute high-intensity edit war were ongoing. But you refuse when that is not the case, therefore, you're actually provoking, rather than preventing, such edit wars. ] 17:34, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)


== Matters currently in Arbitration == == Matters currently in Arbitration ==

Revision as of 21:28, 15 September 2004

Shortcut
  • ]

The last step of Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution is Arbitration, (see arbitration for a general overview of the topic). If, and only 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.

See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy, Misplaced Pages:Arbitrators, /Admin enforcement requested


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

Earlier Steps

Please review Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution for other avenues you should take before requesting Arbitration. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request for Arbitration will be rejected.

Structure of this page

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. Be brief - put a quick list of the nature of the complaints. Link to detailed evidence elsewhere if you need to. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against. New requests to the top, please. Please sign and date at least your original submission with '~~~~'.

What belongs in Requests for Arbitration

  • The Complaint including enough links to evidence that an Arbitrator considering the matter can find examples of what is being complained of. Include links to any policy which applies.
  • The Response which should address the matters raised by the Complaint. Again, links to edits or other evidence are useful.
  • Any Complaint by the defendant against the user who made the original Complaint as well as against other users who have seconded the Complaint or were intimately involved in the events complained of.
  • Information regarding what steps of the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedures were followed. Not the details, especially not what happened during any mediation.
  • Users may join in the Complaint by seconding the Complaint or elaborating on it, but by doing so they implicitly respresent that they wish to be a party to the case and are thus subject to counterclaims which they may have to respond to.

What doesn't belong in Requests for Arbitration

  • Comments regarding the viability of the Complaint by persons not involved in the matter.
  • Comments regarding how the matter is to be titled or the effect of choosing one title or another.
  • Any posting by anyone who is not involved in the case. These are welcome on the talk page.

The numbers in the ====Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/0/0/0)==== sections correspond to (Accept/Reject/Recuse/Other).

Current requests for Arbitration

User:Neutrality (et. al) vs. User:Rex071404

Rex071404 has deliberately and maliciously modified the comments of other users in an deliberate attempt to distort the meaning of their comments. In addition, he has deliberately changed vote tallies to distort the VfD process. Furthermore, he has done so with the knowledge that this was improper, on multiple pages to multiple users. Rex continued this even after being warned several times. I request that the Arbitration Commit impose some form of disciplinary action on Rex.

Also, please note that this request is distinct and separate from other matters currently in Arbitration that involve Rex. Evidence can be found at /Evidence; a copy of this complaint can be found at Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 2. Thanks.

] 22:12, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Votes and comments by arbitrators (4/0/0/0)

  1. Decline, please consider accepting his apology, also Fred Bauder 00:42, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC) Accept, kind of hard to explain the "etc", Fred Bauder 14:55, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Reluctantly accept -- apologies can cover much if sincere, but this looks like a little too much misbehavior for the kind of apology I see Rex offering. Jwrosenzweig 14:12, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Accept. James F. (talk) 17:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Accept. Things don't add up, etc. the Epopt 00:34, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments regarding arbitrator's votes and comments

He has only apologized for changing the comments of others on his userpage. He has not apologized for changing the vote tallies on VfD . ] 00:51, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Please see Fred Bauder 01:01, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
To be quite frank, Rex is lying He put an "etc." at the end, which clearly indicates that what he did was not accidental. ] 01:14, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I concur that Rex's statement of a "typo" is utterly incredible. Look at the edit cited on the evidence page. Fred's endorsement of Rex's claim of a "typo" give me no confidence in his neutrality on this matter. He should be recused.
That is a farce of an apology. If Rex apologized in a manner resembling what VV has suggested, I would quickly rescind my endorsement, but with this farce, I am unmoved. Kevin Baas | talk 03:12, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)
Not knowing where else is best to place this, I place it here:
I, Rex071404, fully apologize for the intentional insult(s) I made against others on my personal talk page recently. It was wrong. I should not have done it. It will not happen again.
Separately, I apologize to this Wiki, the Aribtrators and all others concerned for my grossly inexcusable edit which resulted in vote "tally" inaccuracies. Though I do stand by my defense of "harmless, inadvertant error" on that, even so, I acknowledge and accept that far greater care must be exercized by me prior to pressing the "save page" button. Therefore, I withdraw my "not guilty" plea on this and change my plea to "admit to sufficient facts" (Alford plea). I concede that my action therein has needlessly disrupted the operational continuity of this Wiki and I accept whatever punishment(s) the arbitrators see fit to mete out. Unless requested by the Arbitrators to do so, I will offer no further defense of my edit on the "6 vs 16" ] 19:03, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What is being suspected as Rex's motives here? Was he allegedly trying to "fool" the admin who carried out the deletion into thinking there were ten invisible Keep votes? VV 20:39, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Please note that Rex still does not admit that his edit on VfD was not an error. This "Alford plea" is just as much a sham "apology" as the last one. As an interesting sidebar, an interesting article: . ] 20:52, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
We are not concerned with Rex's motives - they are irrelevant. Althought I would not use as strong wording as N., I am in agreement with him in that I still don't find this apology sufficient, for reasons including the preposterous "error" explanation. I think Rex has to be willing to give up some face and also explain his loss-of-restraint (without accusing) before people will be willing to accept his apology. People understand we're all human. Kevin Baas | talk 18:06, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)
My explanation is simple: I did intend the "etc.", but not the "16". I was goofing with my edits - I did not realize that I had pressed "save page" with the "16" still in my text. Under no conditions would I think that changing that number could have been gotten away with. Had I noticed that my goofing resulted in the "16" actually getting posted, I would have deleted it myself. This is why I say it was a "an inadvertant error". It definately was inadvertant and it was an error. I am not saying that I wasn't goofing around, what I am saying is that I did not realize that the "16" had actually been saved. It really is that simple. And this is why I contend it was an error. Having said that, and listening to myself, I can see that goofing around was also wrong. I apologize. ] 20:04, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Matters currently in Arbitration

/Template

Rejected requests

  • Avala vs various users - Rejected - try other forms of dispute resolution first, please. Discussion moved to User talk:Avala
  • Wheeler vs 172 - Rejected - please try mediation first. Discussion moved to user talk:WHEELER
  • Cheng v. Anonymous and others - Rejected - refer to wikipedia:username for name change policy. For content dispute, try other forms of dispute resolution first, please. Discussion moved to User talk:Nathan w cheng.
  • WikiUser vs. unspecified others - Rejected due to lack of a specific request.
  • Simonides vs. "everyone" - Rejected - referred to the Mediation Committee.
  • Sam Spade vs. Danny - Withdrawn
  • Sam Spade vs. AndyL - Withdrawn
  • Raul654 vs Anthony DiPierro - Withdrawn after agreement of both parties (see standing order).
  • RickK - Rejected - referred to the Mediation Committee.
  • Mike Storm - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
  • Lir (IRC blocking claims) - Rejected due to either a lack of jurisdiction (the IRC channels are not official), or a failure to follow earlier steps.
  • Sam Spade vs. 172 - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
  • User:JRR Trollkien 2 - Inconclusive deadlock: 3 votes to reject, none to accept. Archived at User talk:JRR Trollkien
  • Tim Starling - Rejected.
  • VeryVerily - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
  • Xed vs. Jimbo Wales - Rejected - lack of jurisidiction over Jimbo, private email, lack of initial litigant's involvment, and various other reasons.
  • Emsworth vs. Xed - Rejected
  • Gene Poole vs. Gzornenplatz - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.

Completed requests

  • /Theresa knott vs. Mr-Natural-Health - Decided on 11th Februry 2004 that Mr-Natural-Health would be banned from editing for 30 days (i.e., until 12 Mar 2004). The vote was 6-2 in favor of banning, with 2 explicit and 1 de-facto abstention.
  • /Plautus satire vs Raul654 - Decided on 11th March 2004 that Plautus satire is to be banned for one year, up to and including March 11 2005. The vote was unanimous with 8 votes in favour and 1 de-facto abstention; a further vote in favour of extending the ban indefinitely was held but not met.
  • /Wik - Decided on 15th March 2004 that Wik would have a three month probation during which he may be temp-banned in certain circumstances. There were six votes in favour, three opposed, and one de-facto abstention. Further decisions and minority opinions can be read at /Wik.
  • /Anthony DiPierro - Decided on 25th April 2004 to instruct Anthony with regards to his VfD edits, and refer other issues to mediation. The vote was unanimous with 6 votes in favour and 4 de-facto abstentions. Note that the case was accepted solely to investigate use of VfD.
  • /Mav v. 168 - Closed on 03 July 2004 with an open verdict.
  • /Cantus - Decided on 01 Aug 2004, apply a revert parole to Cantus and other remedies.
  • /Lir - Decided on 23 Aug 2004, blocked for 15 days, revert parole applied, and other remedies.
  • /Mr-Natural-Health - Decided on August 26, 2004. There was an earlier partial decision on 25 June.
  • /Lyndon LaRouche (Herschelkrustofsky, Adam_Carr, John_Kenney, and AndyL) - Decided on September 12, 2004.
Category: