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 →[] vs. []: Case rejected← Previous edit Revision as of 20:03, 18 September 2004 view source MartinHarper (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,927 edits PolishPoliticians doneNext edit →
Line 67: Line 67:
* ] - '''Accepted''' for Arbitration with four votes, on April 20, 2004. Evidence to ], please. For discussion and voting on this matter see ]. Note that this case is accepted solely to determine whether, under existing Misplaced Pages policy, it is acceptable for sysops to ban obvious trolls. * ] - '''Accepted''' for Arbitration with four votes, on April 20, 2004. Evidence to ], please. For discussion and voting on this matter see ]. Note that this case is accepted solely to determine whether, under existing Misplaced Pages policy, it is acceptable for sysops to ban obvious trolls.
* ] '''Accepted''' for Arbitration with three votes (there were 3 recusals) on May 2, 2004. Evidence to ], please. For discussion and voting on this matter see ]. * ] '''Accepted''' for Arbitration with three votes (there were 3 recusals) on May 2, 2004. Evidence to ], please. For discussion and voting on this matter see ].
* ] - '''Accepted''' for Arbitration with four votes on July 27, 2004. Evidence to ], please.
* ] - '''Accepted''' for Arbitration with four votes and two recusals on August 1, 2004. Evidence to ], please. * ] - '''Accepted''' for Arbitration with four votes and two recusals on August 1, 2004. Evidence to ], please.
* ] - '''Accepted''' for Arbitration with four votes and one rejection on August 8, 2004. Evidence to ], please. * ] - '''Accepted''' for Arbitration with four votes and one rejection on August 8, 2004. Evidence to ], please.
Line 148: Line 147:


* ] (Herschelkrustofsky, Adam_Carr, John_Kenney, and AndyL) - '''Decided''' on September 12, 2004. * ] (Herschelkrustofsky, Adam_Carr, John_Kenney, and AndyL) - '''Decided''' on September 12, 2004.

* ] - '''Decided''' on September 18 2004, personal attack parole applied to PolishPoliticians and all new accounts on affected pages.


] ]

Revision as of 20:03, 18 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.
  • /User:PolishPoliticians - Decided on September 18 2004, personal attack parole applied to PolishPoliticians and all new accounts on affected pages.
Category: