Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Case - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HouseBlaster (talk | contribs) at 21:28, 24 June 2024 (→Anachronist: Removing request for arbitration: declined by the Committee). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:28, 24 June 2024 by HouseBlaster (talk | contribs) (→Anachronist: Removing request for arbitration: declined by the Committee)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) "WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.

Shortcut

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Rio Grande 223   19 June 2024 0/6/0
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.

Rio Grande 223

Initiated by DTParker1000 (talk) at 21:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposed parties

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

It has been discussed at length, under two different headings, on the Rio Grande 223 Talk Page (“Viability of Source Material” and “Edit Dispute”). Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Rio_Grande_223

It has also been discussed on the Teahouse page (under “Rio Grande 223 Editing Advice”). Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1219#Rio_Grande_223_Editing_Advice

It has also been the subject of Xboxtravis7992’s Administrator Request for Protected Status for Rio Grande 223 (Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Trains).

I submitted a request for mediation on the Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution Noticeboard a few months ago. I have not had a response.

I sent a message to TransporterMan, who is a Misplaced Pages volunteer mediator a few months ago. I have not had a response.

If there is something else I should be doing, please let me know specifically what it is (preferably with a link to the appropriate form).

Statement by DTParker1000

Replace this comment with your statement.

Statement by Thryduulf

It's not immediately clear to me what is being sought here, but I have left talk page messages for Xboxtravis7992 and TransporterMan as they have been mentioned the filing. It's possible the OP intended to for one or both to be considered parties but that is also unclear. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I have formally proposed a topic ban at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed topic ban for DTParker1000 from Rio Grande 223 that explicitly includes dispute resolution forums. I see no evidence of any need to restrict them from initiating or contributing to dispute resolution about other topics. I don't think there is a need for any action from arbcom. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Xboxtravis7992

I have received the notification of this arbitration, and have no additional opinions to express than what I have said previously. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually I will just add one more thing, DTParker1000 just edited earlier today my User page User:Xboxtravis7992 to say "I filed an appeal regarding the Rio Grande 223 article." Sort of an odd choice rather than putting it on the talk page, and I am not sure if I feel so great about him changing things on my user page.
Other than that though, I really want to move past all this. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Username

Statement by Just Step Sideways

Obviosuly this is malformed, a content dispute, and woefully incompete and will probably be removed soon, but I note that the filing user is currently p-blocked from the page they are complaining about. If this persists a formal t-ban may be in order. Just Step Sideways 00:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised that the committee has not instructed the clerks to remove this yet. This is a minor content dispute, the only behavioral issue seems to be with the filer and the community is more than aboe to deal with it. Just Step Sideways 20:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I can't believe you are actually voting on this. This is an obviously bad filing that could have been summarily removed at any time. It's been nearly a week since voting opened on the other case request above and you don't have that sixth vote to decline it. Is the committee like, ok? I know better than most how it can be sometimes but it seems like this year you are having trouble getting anything done. Just Step Sideways 18:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon (Rio Grande 223)

This filing is vexatious litigation. ArbCom is one of the very few dispute forums in which the boomerang principle is not normally applied, that is, in which filing editors who bring bad cases do not have their own conduct scrutinized. Maybe ArbCom should make an exception.

There is at least one substantive error and one substantive omission in the statement of previous attempts to resolve this dispute. The filer states: I submitted a request for mediation on the Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution Noticeboard a few months ago. I have not had a response. That is incorrect. Xboxtravis7992 filed a request at DRN on 11 March 2024. See Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_242#Rio_Grande_223. I closed the case, with a statement that they could file another case in 48 hours if certain conditions were met. DTParker1000 then filed a request at DRN on 7 April 2024. Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_244#Rio_Grande_223. I closed that request as vexatious litigation: ] I advised them that one content option that they had was a Request for Comments. So the statement that they did not receive a response from DRN is substantively incorrect. The good faith explanation is that the filing party has competence issues and does not know what they have done, or that the filing party has competence issues and does not know that "No" is a response.

The substantive omission is that the filer does not mention that they previously requested arbitration on 19 March 2024: ], and the request was declined by ArbCom on 20 March 2024. This request appears to be missing from ArbCom's list of declined case requests.

The filing editor, DTParker1000, has been partially blocked from editing Rio Grande 223, for edit-warring. They requested an unblock, which was declined, and they were told that they can still use the article talk page.

This is vexatious litigation. This case should be declined, and I suggest one of the following additional sanctions: ArbCom can impose a sanction, ranging from a topic-ban to a ban; any one arbitrator, as an administrator, can impose a sanction; ArbCom can open a thread at WP:AN to allow the community to impose sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Hammersoft

Obviously this will be declined. That said, I've placed a final warning on DTParker1000's talk page regarding their behavior. See diff. Hopefully that concludes this matter. Hopefully. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Jéské Couriano

Contrasting what everyone else says above and given the filer's vexatious-litigant nature, would it not be a bad idea to resolve this via a motion topic-banning DTParker from the Rio Grande 223 (or, if there's further issues in the trains topic area, from that writ large) and requiring them to get agreement from an Arbitrator and/or administrator for any noticeboard threads they want to file (a la CheeseDreams), including on-wiki appeals? I don't see a reason for a full case here, but given most of the issue appears to be escalating mindlessly if they get an unfavourable answer that seems like something more suited for ArbCom to address here and now. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 08:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Aoidh: Would the community be able to put in place and enforce a "vexatious-litigant" sanction? Speaking from experience, this is very likely to come back here otherwise (assuming DTParker does not get blocked) as they continue forum-shopping for someplace and someone willing to side with him. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 17:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Novem Lingaue

Just noting that Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:DTParker1000's tendentious editing of Rio Grande 223 was opened during this case request. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Ad Orientem

This is a waste of time and should be closed summarily per the comment by Just Step Sideways. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Rio Grande 223: Clerk notes

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

Rio Grande 223: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/6/0>-Rio_Grande_223-20240620203100">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Decline as premature --Guerillero 20:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)"> ">
  • Decline - The issue as presented by DTParker1000 appears to be a content dispute more than a conduct issue, though concerns about DTParker1000's conduct have been mentioned above by others. Any issues with conduct should be handled through community processes before considering an ArbCom case; it is premature to open a case at this time. - Aoidh (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)