Revision as of 04:17, 29 October 2008

WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:RfA Review (WP:RREV).

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

• WP:RFAR
• WP:A/R
• WP:ARB/R
• WP:ARBREQ

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Current requests

Arjun MBT

Initiated by Chanakyathegreat (talk) at 06:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Chanakyathegreat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Jauerback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Ricky81682 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• By78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

• Jauerback
• Ricky81682
• By78

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by User:Chanakyathegreat

The earlier request was rejected on the basis of content dispute. This issue is going for many months and yet has not been solved. The main problem, which according to me is that the Admins not sticking to rules by not looking at the edit and the explantion on the subject but on the person making the edit. This lead to the Article which was a B-class article's quality being hit. There are grave errors in the article which was pointed out to the Admins and after repeated requests has not been corrected. One simple example can be the Summer 2006 of the talk page. Wanted to correct the article starting from this section onwards. Made a request on OCtober 8 and asked the Admins for their opinion. Till now I had not received a response. I made the edit after waiting for a long time(2 weeks). Instead of correcting the errors, reverted my edit and then blocked me for week. And also I would like to bring to the notice is that valid edits with sources that I make be it in the Arjun MBT article or another gets reverted back without any valid explanation or some invalid explanation. So I request the Admins being told to stick to the rules and check the validity of each and every edit and if they find any problem with my edit, to point it to me and ask explanation rather than revert it without any explanation. Also I would like By78 be told to engage in constructive discussion on the topic and not to derail the discussion with personal attacks and invalid arguments.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by By78

Please see Arjun talk pages (including archives). I rest my case. I will waste no more time on this subject. Thank you. By78 (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ricky81682

First of all, I think this is too preliminary for arbitration. We haven't even attempted 3O, let alone an RFC or mediation. I see arbitration was rejected in early September so unless the user conduct deserves it, I think it's again still just a content dispute, albeit more formed than before. Frankly, this is just related to User:Chanakyathegreat's aggressive POV, to the point of outright blatant misrepresentations. My first interaction at ANI was because Chanakya had been complaining about admins that had blocked him (and another who blocked again for continuing immediately after his block expired). His attitude then needed some work.

• From there, telling him to stop reverting back months of work wasn't yielding anything.

• I think this discussion is a microcosm of our problem. Chanakya claims a source is incorrect. I respond, "Because you say so?". Chanakya says, the committee says so (still no source for this). User:Jauerback offers an explanation. After another request for a source, Chanakya responds with "There's a saying. After hearing the whole of Ramayana, one asks what's the relation between Rama and Sita?" and goes on to something else.

• My line in the sand can be found in the middle of Talk:Arjun_MBT#AUCRT_.282007-08.29. After I spent quite a bit of time reorganizing the article into a single chronological order, Chanakya claims that "it was By78 who insisted on a single AUCRT but now you want it to be separate". Only one problem: as I point out, Chanakya edit to "update" the article was an attempt to undo everything by re-merging the entire information about three different tests, covering two years at least. Further discussion at Talk:Arjun_MBT#Chronological_order with this question to him about the blurring of facts. I also warned him on his talk page (also because he absolutely refuses to properly indent his comments and/or sign things properly).

• Chanakya responds to By78 that "The real reason for the incorrect version existence and you being able to insert stuff that are wrong is just because the Admins are hostile towards me and not sticking to rules.". Jauerback calls him out on this.

• Further discussion at Talk:Arjun_MBT#July_2005 about sources from 2008 used in the 2005 test section which Chanakya refuses to acknowledge is blatantly ridiculous.

• As you can see from this early September ANI report that all we seem to get from Chanakya are accusations that all the admins are biased to his neutrality.

I'm sorry that I haven't done too much of a compare with the article page (this was enough work for one night) but its history along with Chanakya's talk page (starting around here) should be sufficient in my opinion. I think it's time to put an end to all of this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by {Party 4}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)

Clarifications and other requests

• WP:RFAC
• WP:RCAM

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Current requests

Request for clarification

I have a question concerning an ArbCom decision and how it might apply to the article Bretton Woods II. On October 21, I made an edit to that article, which was only a few weeks old and described as a "stub." I added material from the Italian paper Corriere della Sera, an article called "The Bretton Woods II of LaRouche and Tremonti." The article, which included an interview with Italian Economics Minister Giulio Tremonti, established that LaRouche had been a long-time proponent of the Bretton Woods II concept, and that Tremonti had been influenced by his ideas. I also added a link to LaRouche's original 1997 proposal which had been promoted world-wide, including by Ukrainian parliamentarian Nataliya Vitrenko. Here is a link to my edit.

I was surprised when two editors, Will Beback and Boodlesthecat, immediately removed this material, making angry and discourteous edit summaries and talk page comments to the effect that it couldn't possibly be true, that Corriere della Sera was not a significant publication, and that Tremonti was not a significant person. What followed was a series of messages on my talk page from Will Beback which I found very unpleasant because I felt that they were intended to intimidate me. He said that my edit had violated earlier decisions by the Arbitration Committee, specifically that "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Misplaced Pages article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles."

Looking back at my edit, I would say the following:

1. Corriere della Sera is the preeminent newspaper in Italy, so it could hardly be considered "work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement."

2. The Corriere della Sera article establishes that LaRouche is notable with regard to the topic of Bretton Woods II (i.e., "The Bretton Woods II of LaRouche and Tremonti") so the Bretton Woods II article may certainly be considered "closely related" to LaRouche.

3. Under the circumstances, it was not wrong to link to the original proposal of LaRouche, which predates other uses of the term by minimally four years.

Please let me know whether you disagree, because I have the impression that Will Beback is threatening to block me if I "repeat edits like that." --Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: C68-FM-SV

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Alecmconroy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified

Statement by Alecmconroy

Regrettably, circumstance lead me to request the committee consider reviewing its decision in this case, with an eye toward issuing stronger sanctions against one of the parties.

In as brief as possible:

• In September, SV (as a party in this case) was strongly admonished in what I interpreted as a "final warning" to alter her behavior.
• Since that time, Arbcom has been privately considering the allegations SV made against Lar and Mackenson. In that case, SV has continually refused to "provide the Committee with a clear and substantive statement of complaint" regarding her allegations against Lar and Mackenson, despite numerous requests to do so from the committee. At the same time, she did not offer any retraction of her earlier public allegations.
• By 20 Oct, in the SV-LAR proposed decision, seven arbs had endorsed another warning to SV in the form of finding which said:

"SlimVirgin's choice of a forum of discussion was unhelpful, in the sense that magnification and further drama were the likely result. Given the sensitivity of the concerns, it would have been far preferable to have raised them privately with the Committee or with the Wikimedia Ombudsmen rather than in extensive public discussion—an approach that left the CheckUsers unable to fully respond and created risks to the privacy of third parties."

• Despite the numerous warnings to conduct the case in private, on 20 Oct, SV again made a public statement in which she re-iterated her allegations against Lar and Mackenson. diff redacted for privacy
• In response, NYB again warned against further public discussion. An arbcom clerk archived the discussion, and another clerk then blanked SV's statement from the archive. The committee stated that

"Parties are instructed to make no further posts to this page pending further input from arbitrators. Other editors are urged to do the same."

• In response to these warnings, On 21 Oct, SV again violated Arbcom's request-- posting on the talk page despite instruction not to do so..
• A clerk removed the comment and again warned SV that Arbcom had instructed parties not to post on the page.
• Again on 21 Oct, SV immediately re-inserted it, again directly violating the request not to post on the page.

In short, SV was warned about her behavior in the C68-FM-SV decision. She was again warned by the proposed decision which had been endorsed by seven arbs. She was yet again warned by NYB and the arbcom statement not to post. She was still yet again warned by a clerk. Despite these multitude of warnings, SV yet again persisted in the violating the warnings and editing disruptively.

In the remedy "Further Review and Sanctions", the Committee promised that they would "impose substantial additional sanctions, which may include desysopping in the case of parties who are administrators, without further warnings in the event of significant violations"

When the C68-FM-SV sanctions were being discussed, I defended letting SV off with a warning, and I argued she would likely change her behavior after so strongly-worded a warning. The span of 34 days has, regrettably, shown her behavior to be unchanged. If anything, the behavior appears to have worsened.

This cannot be allowed to persist. In addition to the direct harm caused by bad behavior, there is an inherently corrosive effect in allowing one individual to completely ignore so many repeated warnings without consequence. For these reasons, I humbly request Arbcom consider some further sanction against SV. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to Sam Blacketer: I was very uncertain of the proper venue for this. Could be a new case, could be at SV-LAR, could be at the C68-FM-SV case page, or could be a clarification. I didn't put it at SV-LAR because that case's central focus is on events that happened in private in March, whereas my concerns are with events that happened in public in October. But please, feel free to move this request to wherever you and the other arbs & clerks feel is the proper venue. -Alecmconroy (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to Bainer: Just want to clarify-- I'm not concerned about SV's behavior last March/July. We can't expect her behavior in March to have been affected by a warning she received in September. My concern is about SV's behavior during the past week.

As it happens, most of that behavior took place on a Arbcom page-- but that's more or less irrelevant. The location of her behavior isn't important. What's important is that this week Arbcom gave SV some very, very clear "lines in the sand" and warned her repeatedly not to cross them-- and she crossed every single one of them anyway. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

More than anything-- all the debate about the original dispute is irrelevant. Arbcom told her "DO NOT POST THIS" and she posted this. Arbcom told her "DO NOT POST _ANYTHING_" and she posted something. A clerk told her "DO NOT ADD THIS COMMENT" and she added it back.

And still, not a single block has been applied, not a single sysop bit has been flipped. I bet you, right now, if I were to go and edit that page that no one is supposed to edit, I would be given NO warnings, no second chances, no do-overs. I bet if I edit warred against an arbcom clerk, the time it took to block me could be measured with a stopwatch. And I for one, am quite sick of there being two sets of rules around here. --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Avruch

First I should say that I am hesitant to involve myself in this, but I feel both a debt to Lar and a responsibility to point out an injustice that I believe is taking place. Perhaps that puts me on the same level as others - upset by a perceived injustice, taking action in a public forum where many will read of my dismay.

SlimVirgin has repeated and even reinforced her initial accusations against Lar. She has rejected the judgment of the Arbitration Committee and ignored its advice to move on or to make her claims in private, where they can be addressed without the risk of releasing private information or unnecessarily damaging the reputation of a highly trusted member of the community.

The irony is that she posts the following, and variations, in multiple forums: "I've been prompted to speak out because I'm currently being prevented from publishing a defence of myself in a case where I'm being publicly criticized." On her talk page SlimVirgin cites principles of procedural fairness - specifically, that the accused is entitled to view the evidence against him or herself with the confidence that no evidence bearing on judgment is withheld by the accuser. In this case the committee has in fact observed the principles of procedural justice - resulting in substantive harm to the accused: a series of accusations against Lar, with increasing severity, have been made for which he has been denied the opportunity to fully respond.

I don't see that SlimVirgin has been encumbered at all - she has made her case on the mailing lists, on her talkpage, on Jimmy Wales' talkpage, on arbitration pages, on administrator noticeboards and the talk pages of other editors and arbitrators.

These caustic disputes on Misplaced Pages between trusted community members bring out the worst in us - they reinforce the public image of a Misplaced Pages divided into sides and factions, where loyalties and alliances are determinative. I don't personally know how to solve this very serious problem, but I do strongly believe that we should begin by basing our conclusions on evidence instead of innuendo. We should expect and require that serious allegations require serious evidence, because lower standards make our community weaker and put the reputations and work of committed editors at risk. Many extraordinarily productive editors have left in the last year, some even in the last month, because of accusations and conclusions based on an inaccurate presentation of the facts. It's a community imperative that we not allow this to continue unchecked.

I'll stipulate that I have no way to know if SlimVirgin's allegations are accurate; no way to know if misunderstanding or malice by either party underlies the dispute. But I would like the Committee to consider bringing this to a close, by definitively stating its conclusions. Accusations of misconduct against figures who have been granted the highest levels of trust in the community are corrosive - they impact the ability of all checkusers, stewards and other trusted figures to carry out their work. If Lar is not found to have abused his position, then further accusations in public forums should be prohibited.

Avruch 01:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I should echo one thing that Sticky has said and contradict another - first, he is completely correct that if the proposed decision talkpage (or any other page of that case) were open to editing then these problems would likely be brought there. Second, there is quite a difference between telling an editor to stop making specific and unfounded allegations against another editor and preventing her from issuing valid criticism of the arbitration committee. The second is something she has a right to do, and the first is not. Avruch 02:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Sticky Parkin

If the talk page of the proposed decision was open people could make this suggestion there rather than here. I don't think SV has done anything like this in the last several days since the proposed decision talk page was protected, so it's not persisting behaviour. I can see her point about not being able to make her case against the things said about her in the discussion section on the proposed decision page itself, and I feel that people who are having 'official pronouncements' made about them should be allowed right to reply in the same venue, especially if comments are being made about them by the Official Arbitrators which they consider false, which will be available for people to see for the forseeable future. But that's a matter for a change to how all arbcoms are constructed, I suppose, and I think that's all SV is saying on her talkpage etc, which she has a right to do, in the same manner as User talk:Giano II makes his thoughts clear about how arbcom is run. It wouldn't be particularly right to sanction someone just for (rightly or wrongly) criticizing arbcom, within reason. Otherwise, perhaps no institution would ever changeSticky Parkin 02:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes Aruch what I was saying is I don't know if she's said any other accusations against lar since the talk page was protected, if so then she hasn't since she was told not to a week or go or whenever, and being told not to then was enough. The evidence is private, hence Alec and the rest of us might not have a clue what we're talking about. That said, why didn't Alec just email arbcom with his concerns instead? But that would have no visible acknowledgement or proof of the question/proposal having been made, so perhaps less chance of leading to a response, and also not feel as fulfilling, perhaps. As such, he is in the perfect position to empathise with SV.:) Oh hang on, that would be if his comments were blanked.:) Sticky Parkin 18:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by InkSplotch

Without commenting on the issue here, I would like to point out the only subpage in the current Lar/SlimVirgin case is the Proposed Decision page, which is currently protected both main and talk. Without a workshop or any means for the community to provide input, it seems to me Alec proceeded in the only way available to him.

I understand the reasons ArbCom shutdown the talk page, and support them. I would, however, suggest that if they need to continue deliberating they consider provisionally unprotecting the talk page. The proviso being, should things get out of hand any admin could reprotect with the blessing of ArbCom. It's just that, the longer this decision takes, the more frustrated the community will become being unable to speak about it. --InkSplotch (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO

Alecmcconroy appears to be overinvolved in "fixing" what he perceives as problems...yet has added little to nothing as far as encyclopedic material for the bulk of this entire year. I think the arbitration committee needs to cease considering any cases brought forth from what can arguably be easily seen as editors who are here for little other than harassment and creating drama.--MONGO 00:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

• This case was initially provided in a format not in line with that suggested; for the purposes of easy navigation, I have brought this thread as much in line with Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Request template for all other requests as I possibly can. The thread pre-reformatting can be reviewed here. No parties to this case were listed by the filer; it may be necessary for Alecmconroy to evaluate whether any parties should be provided. (Please remember any parties must be notified, and diffs of those notifications provided above.) AGK 22:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• My preliminary view is that any misconduct on a different, ongoing arbitration case would be handled within that case rather than by amending a previous one. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Sam. Furthermore, it is important to note that the cases ran concurrently, and these proposals relate to matters that took place before this case was decided and the remedies implemented. --bainer (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages arbitration