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 23:20, 15 October 2013 view sourceCallanecc (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators73,312 edits →Clerk notes: clarify what I changes← Previous edit Revision as of 23:33, 15 October 2013 view source Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,486 edits →Reverts and ban performed by User:SilkTork regarding Mayoralty in Puerto Rico: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter: comment, tally now 0/0/0/1Next edit →
Line 115: Line 115:
*I've done a bit of cleaning up and changed "ban" to "block" in the title. ''']''' (] • ] • ]) 23:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC) *I've done a bit of cleaning up and changed "ban" to "block" in the title. ''']''' (] • ] • ]) 23:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


=== Reverts and ban performed by User:SilkTork regarding Mayoralty in Puerto Rico: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0> === === Reverts and ban performed by User:SilkTork regarding Mayoralty in Puerto Rico: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/1> ===
{{anchor|1=Reverts and ban performed by User:SilkTork regarding Mayoralty in Puerto Rico: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small> {{anchor|1=Reverts and ban performed by User:SilkTork regarding Mayoralty in Puerto Rico: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small>
*Awaiting statement from SilkTork, but strongly leaning toward decline. Apropos of nothing, the implication in Ahnoneemoos's essay that Misplaced Pages should emulate "4chan and its administration process" is the worst idea I've ever read in the history of this site. ] (]) 23:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

*

Revision as of 23:33, 15 October 2013

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Reverts and block performed by User:SilkTork regarding Mayoralty in Puerto Rico   15 October 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 1 December 2024
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.

Reverts and block performed by User:SilkTork regarding Mayoralty in Puerto Rico

Initiated by —Ahnoneemoos (talk) at 17:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Statement by User:Ahnoneemoos

I have been banned unjustifiably by User:SilkTork, an ArbCom member. This is in relation to an RFC at: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Mayors_in_Puerto_Rico

On October 4 User:Op47 opened an RFC on that talk page regarding an embedded list being used on the article.

I showed him that such embedded lists are more than fine per:

During the course of the discussion User:Op47 modified my own comments and replied within my comments rather than below them: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mayors_in_Puerto_Rico&diff=576019861&oldid=576017633

I asked the user to not do that as people might believe I was the one making those comments: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mayors_in_Puerto_Rico&diff=576021662&oldid=576020925

I also brought up the incident to ANI so that an administrator could intervene: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive814#User:Op47_modifying_what_other_users_said_in_a_Talk_page

No one did.

On October 10 User:Op47 contacted me directly on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Ahnoneemoos&diff=576636598&oldid=576221629

I told him to cease contacting me directly as I wanted to avoid an escalation and instead suggested him that he posted in ANI: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Ahnoneemoos&diff=576678771&oldid=576636598

This is done in virtue of our dispute resolution process so that both parties could cool off, avoid a stiff, and allow a third party to intervene per: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Third_opinion

On October 11 User:SilkTork posted on my talk page regarding what is going on in the Mayoralty article: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Ahnoneemoos&diff=576710823&oldid=576678771

I rebuked his arguments and asked him to instead move the conversation to the article's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Ahnoneemoos&diff=576722553&oldid=576710823

User:SilkTork never replied back to my counterarguments, nor replied in the article's talk page.

However, on October 11 User:SilkTork decided to close the RFC even though only 4 people were participating in it and even though only 7 days have passed: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mayors_in_Puerto_Rico&diff=576744390&oldid=576711462

He also merged another article into the one being discussed even though that was not the purpose of the RFC: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_current_mayors_of_Puerto_Rico&diff=576752835&oldid=560459381

He also removed a bunch of red links on a template claiming that such action was permissible under an essay: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Mayoralties_in_Puerto_Rico&diff=576754390&oldid=551670987

I reverted all his edits for the following reasons (including summaries on the edit summary):

The original article was reverted per WP:RFC in order to allow the RFC to run its natural course of 30 days. After which consensus would be formally established and I would abide to whatever was decided: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mayors_in_Puerto_Rico&diff=576861186&oldid=576753052

This was done per WP:RFC which states EXPLICITLY that:

"Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment."

I contend that the RFC should be left to run its natural course of 30 days. After which I will abide by whatever is decided by the community in consensus. I also contend that there is interest in this discussion and that editors were commenting on it (I was the very last person to reply). I also contend that just having people saying that they don't like something is not enough to establish consensus, as we already have guidelines for this. Nobody has rebuked the guidelines being used as basis.

The list of current mayors was reverted as this was not the original issue being discussed in the RFC. The RFC was about using an embedded list on the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_current_mayors_of_Puerto_Rico&diff=576861329&oldid=576753224

The template with red links was reverted since WP:EXISTING is an essay; not a policy nor a guideline. User:SilkTork implicitly claimed that removing such links was appropriate per that essay. As you may all know, essays are just that: essays. They are not official. The template was reverted per WP:REDLINK which is an official guideline: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Mayoralties_in_Puerto_Rico&diff=576862420&oldid=576754390

This is when all went downhill.

User:SilkTork, rather than involving an impartial third party, decided to revert back my reverts and ban me because he alleges that my reverts were "disruptive editing" EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE ALL EXPLAINED IN THE EDIT SUMMARIES AND BACKED UP BY POLICIES: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Ahnoneemoos&diff=576865553&oldid=576722553

Obviously I cannot now revert back his edits as doing so would lead to another ban even though my reverts are backed up by policies.

Furthermore, this is a crass abuse of administrative privileges and a WP:WITCHHUNT. Proof of this is the fact that User:SilkTork removed a link to an essay I wrote (WP:NOUSERS) from the Misplaced Pages essays template because he considers it "not helpful": https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Wikipedia_essays&diff=prev&oldid=577018307 User:SilkTork would not have been able to even notice this if he were not on a witchhunt persecuting what I do and have done on Misplaced Pages.

I'm formally requesting desysoping of User:SilkTork for these actions. This person does not have the capacity to be an administrator, even less so to be in ArbCom.

If ARBCOM beleives that I personally attacked someone I profoundly apologize to that person publicly. Namely User:Op47 who might have considered my comments a personal attack. For that, I apologize to him publicly as those were not my intentions. I open myself to any further sanctions that ARBCOM believes are meritory.

However, that was not the basis for my ban. My ban was based on the reverts I performed which are entirely legal and within Misplaced Pages's framework and policies. User:SilkTork must be desysoped because of this.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by {Party 2}

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

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

Reverts and ban performed by User:SilkTork regarding Mayoralty in Puerto Rico: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/1>

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

  • Awaiting statement from SilkTork, but strongly leaning toward decline. Apropos of nothing, the implication in Ahnoneemoos's essay that Misplaced Pages should emulate "4chan and its administration process" is the worst idea I've ever read in the history of this site. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)