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 Xeno (talk | contribs) at 17:14, 31 August 2011 (→Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/2): tally). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:14, 31 August 2011 by Xeno (talk | contribs) (→Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/2): tally)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Astroturfing on Singaporean politics   24 August 2011 {{{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 10 January 2025

Requests for arbitration


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.

Astroturfing on Singaporean politics

Initiated by elle vécut heureuse (be free) at 01:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Involved parties

Note, listed IPs as parties are non-exhaustive and their exact identities as distinct parties are hard to pin down.


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Link 1
  • Link 2

Statement by La goutte de pluie

Why I am seeking arbitration

I originally sought to ask via RFC community input on the matter, a la Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/United States Congress, which attracted huge attention on a relatively small number of COI edits. I saw my RFC/U as a good thing, since, it would draw matter to the whole attention, and I did not mind resigning my sysop bit in order to ensure that more community attention would be paid to the matter. Since then, this desired community attention has not occurred to any satisfactory level, and the fact of the matter remains that problematic anonymous users can still engage in tendentious editing while escaping the scrutiny and sanctions of the community.

While there is sometimes conflict, I have worked satisfactorily with such established users as Zhanzhao and Strange Passerby.I respect their views and discussion, and we use talk pages frequently. I am seeking their statements only because they have been involved in the whole affair as witnesses: they are worthy and fair editors, and make constructive contributions to discussion.

In contrast, many of the IP users in question are clearly not out to improve the project, but to enforce their agenda, cherrypicking policy and WP:GAMING the system. The definition of conflict of interest is when some external goal becomes more important than the project. The integrity of the project has always been my utmost concern. I simply do not want Misplaced Pages to be debased to the standard of being a high-pagerank outlet for promotionalism and propaganda. Further attempted DR like mediation or RFC would not at all, get these editors to put the interests of the project above their external interests. As such, I am seeking to proceed to arbitration directly.

While the (mainstream) press has not reported significantly on this phenomenon to mention it in any article, nascent citizen journalists have. I would like to point the ArbCom of other examples of likely government-sponsored "trolling" -- Misplaced Pages is not the only victim. Bloggers identified likely cases where the PAP created fake facebook accounts to astroturf online communities. With a google search, we can find meatspace user johntan88888, who uploaded the "gay agenda video" which was confirmed to be the video that Vivian Balakrishnan referred to in an accusation against the SDP. John Tan also happens to the name of a prominent SDP leader, and the name of an account on Facebook which went around different prominent opposition pages making derogatory comments about homosexuality, but did not have any of the public personal information that most other facebook users had -- that is, the account was likely registered as an "impostor attack account". I ask the ArbCom to consider this offwiki evidence that astroturfing a high-ranking site such as Misplaced Pages would not be beyond the ethics of possible employers involved.

Succinctly, I detail some examples of on-wiki COI here and here. The list is far from nonexhaustive.

Word count: 483

Response to arbitrators
I intend to complete the request soon, but it is a lot of tedious, unjoyous work compiling diffs. elle vécut heureuse (be free) 04:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Much of the initial beginnings of the affair are now contained in a series of edits contained in Special:Undelete/Vivian Balakrishnan/deleted revisions (that had been deleted for separate, foundational copyvio concerns going all the way to 2005.) I would like to request (in order for me to compile my request properly) that those series of edits be undeleted so they can be subject to diff citation and public scrutiny. elle vécut heureuse (be free) 04:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Strange Passerby

Short of a community-wide content and conduct RFC on the matter (a la Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/United States Congress), and with little prior dispute resolution, I will not be providing the Arbitration Committee with a statement and would strongly urge the Committee to decline the case until further DR has been attempted. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  • It should be noted that there are two different issues here: one a content issue and the other conduct. The two are intrinsically linked here and I would advise the Committee to proceed very carefully not to end up straying too much into the content area of this dispute. I would much prefer ArbCom extend by motion the community general sanctions agreed on at ANI to cover all Singaporean politics articles, as FuFoFuEd suggests below. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Please direct any questions to my talk page as I do not intend to take part in this request any further. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by kinda uninvolved Ebe123

Please accept this request even though an RfC is under process. Wikistalking is very bad for this encyclopeadia. ~~Ebe123~~ (+)
Contribs 11:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by FuFoFuEd

ArbCom could pass by motion WP:Discretionary sanctions on the topic area. It's hard to file a RfC on 202.156.13.* and various other come-and-go WP:SPA accounts. While WP:AE has its limitations, it seems better suited for dealing with this type of problem. I note that the community already enacted 1RR+semiprotection for a few of the articles involved, but soon after that edit warring without any discussion spread to other articles. FuFoFuEd (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that the IP range in question has gained some blocks , and more of the IPs in this range have received edit warring warnings. That would have been held against a registered user in a topic ban discussion. FuFoFuEd (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's an example of interaction in this area: 203.116.187.1 deletes a reference to a satirical film mentioned in Singaporean education, claiming it was "sensationalising issues". La goutte de pluie reverts claiming "cultural legacy" relevance. 202.156.13.245 reverts La goutte de pluie without comment--although one can easily imagine that pro-gov't-policies editor sees that edit of La goutte as unsourced and possibly out-of-date POV because the EM3 stream was apparently abolished in 2008--and then La goutte reverts the IP for "wikistalking" . FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

218.186.16.* appears to be another problematic range see and their contributions. FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Cube Lurker

I'm not convinced that this can't be handled by the community. With the issue of tool usage already resolved we're left with making sure the articles follow WP:BLP & WP:NPOV. More eyes on the articles by uninvolved admins and experienced editors seems the main thing that is needed.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/2)

  • Awaiting completion of the request and further statements. The filing party should address, in the appropriate section, what prior dispute resolution attempts have been made and why they have not been successful (or, if steps have been skipped, the reason the matter should go straight to arbitration). Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Could a clerk please advise the filing party to make a statement? I'm not willing to consider a request without any narrative. I'd also be interested in any and all attempts at dispute resolution, including any RFCs (content or user), SPIs, requests for assistance at any noticeboards, etc. I have the sense that there has indeed been an ongoing problem here, but there's nothing in the request itself to indicate what kind of problem that might be. Risker (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Not to do the filing party's work, but for anyone following, User talk:La goutte de pluie and Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/La goutte de pluie contain relevant discussion. (For those without a scorecard, La goutte de pluie, who signs as "Elle", is the filing party here.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Newyorkbrad. I note that, according to that RFC, there has actually been a fairly extensive history of trying to resolve this dispute, and the RFC specifically refers to concerns about the possibly inappropriate use of administrator tools, and La goutte de pluie has since self-requested desysopping. La goutte de pluie, I suggest you focus on the disputes and discussions that are accessible and noted on the RFC, as well as any related non-deleted threads; we do not need full evidence at this point to decide whether or not to accept the case. At this point, I am leaning toward acceptance. Risker (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Just as an FYI, the self-request was in the context of a recall and therefore any return of administrative permissions would need to be via new RFA. –xeno 14:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline for now, without prejudice against considering the matter in the future. Given that an RfC is underway, I would prefer to see that method tried through to its end before we become involved. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Decline. We might be able to help if the problem persists in a month, but right now is too soon. John Vandenberg 12:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Awaiting further comments. –xeno 14:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    Decline; this can probably be adequately addressed in other venues. The remedies suggested by FuFoFuEd could be sought at WP:AN. –xeno 17:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Minded to accept. The ANI report and follow up RfC focussed on Elle, and in particular the question of whether her editing was acceptable for an administrator. However, the behaviour of other parties, most of whom edit from IPs was also raised as a significant concern, particularly as some are editing from what appear to be government offices, so there is the potential for a parallel with the Scientology case. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)