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 David Fuchs (talk | contribs) at 18:17, 7 September 2011 (→Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/4/0/1): declin). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:17, 7 September 2011 by David Fuchs (talk | contribs) (→Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/4/0/1): declin)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
]   2 September 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.

La goutte de pluie

Initiated by Kudu  at 22:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Statement by KuduIO

This editor has misused a position of trust as an administrator and as an editor, in relation to various issues involving WP:NPOV (and by extension, WP:COI), WP:NOR and WP:CIVIL. It seems several warnings and previous attempts at mentoring have only emboldened her instead of making her a better editor. For more information, see the latest RfC and the outside views within. It is worth noting that Elle has already been recalled through a process she approved, but that Jimbo Wales seemed to think that further action is needed. — Kudu  22:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Elen of the Roads, evidently Elle has little desire to comply by the standards of constructive editing. — Kudu  14:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by OpenInfoForAll

I feel there are still more questions to be answered so I object to Arbitration for now.OpenInfoForAll (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment from marginally involved The Blade of the Northern Lights

During the whole ANI fracas and the ensuing RfC, both of which are linked above, I've seen a tendency towards snap judgments without examining the underlying problem. This request seems to be yet more of the same; I don't see anything that can't realistically get resolved with some actual discussion (note, discussion; not accusations and vague hand-waving about "further measures"). We need more people to get involved in the topic area, as I have volunteered to. We do not need an arbitration case, as that will only further detract from the part that really matters; the content. Internal politics on this site aside, the most important issue, at least to me, is dealing with the very real problems with the content in that topic area. Somewhat lost in the hysteria of the questionable use of La goutte de pluie's admin tools was the constant IP trolling; some blocks have been handed out for behavioral issues, but not nearly enough has been done to counteract the severely non-neutral anonymous editing on some of the above-linked articles. I'll say what I've said at the RfC; while Jimbo is all worried about her "punish COI" statement at an AfD, I don't exactly see a long line of people willing to actually do anything to help combat the real COI editing going on. Instead of making everyone's life that much more miserable by going through arbitration, how about fixing the problems yourselves? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

@SirFozzie; have you read WT:Requests for comment/La goutte de pluie#response to Jimbo Wales? If you haven't, then it should give you a different perspective. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Strange Passerby

While I am of the opinion that ultimately, we will end up here at Arbitration if Lgdp does not make any reasonable attempt to change some of her perceptions of what is acceptable, I do not think we are yet at the stage of requiring Arbitration. I would much rather see Lgdp agree to abide by consensus developing at the RFC/U, and we can return here in a few weeks/months if this has not gone anywhere since. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I am retracting my original comment. Lgdp has shown little inclination of co-operating with the RFC/U process, so I have asked of her a very simple question on her talk page, whether she is willing to abide by the consensus developing at the RFC/U for a BLP topic ban. This would seem most pressing at the moment, with the "COI punishment" also of concern. I would strongly urge the Committee to consider the case in summary motion if she declines to abide by the RFC/U proposal (it is non-binding after all), as this has dragged on for too long (coming up on four months) and needs to stop. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

As Lgdp has indicated she will not voluntarily agree to a BLP topic ban somehow because those "calling for it have not ... contributed anything in the fight against COI", I am now of the opinion the only way forward is Arbitration, and that the RFC/U will not reach an agreeable resolution and is no longer of use in the dispute resolution process.

Statement by Ebe123

The RfC is underway, resolution is being discussed, so the ArbCom case right now shouldn't be accepted. There are a few aspects that would come in this ArbCom case that are not in the RfC but we should still wait until finished. No prejudice for a future ArbCom case please. For now, consensus for resolution would be block or ban. ~~Ebe123~~ (+)
Contribs 12:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Jimbo Wales

Since my name was invoked in the opening statement, I should say that I haven't asked for an ArbCom case, that I don't consider myself an 'involved party', and that I don't think an ArbCom case is necessary or desirable. I am very much dismayed by the notion that people who have edited with a conflict of interest should be punished through the insertion of negative information into their biographies. That view is unethical and appalling, and I have been unhappy with Elle's ongoing defense of it. But I don't see any cause for an ArbCom case.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Atama

I closed two community ban discussions regarding La goutte de pluie, seen here. I chose to close the discussions because they had been waiting for more than a week for closure, and implemented the one ban proposal that I felt had consensus, and that was my first time really getting involved with her and any controversies regarding her edits and use of administrator tools. I later commented at the RfC, expressing my concern over an incident that occurred with her use of admin tools. My concerns were alleviated for the most part when she voluntarily resigned the tools. I'm not sure that arbitration is necessary at this point, with the RfC still ongoing. -- Atama頭 05:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by la goutte de pluie

Besides the issues made clear in the first arbitration request, the bulk of the real case in this dispute seems to be the comments I have made regarding COI. Let me make it clear that I have every intention of abiding by policy and I have on the problem articles, continually solicited community input. The comments concern the motivation behind certain corrective edits I would make, but the motive is to defend the project. On the other hand, on Misplaced Pages, we allow (though we discourage) edits made with a motive external to the project, that is edits with a conflict of interest. Other than a difference in intent, I maintain to comply with policy at all times, and I will of course seek to solicit with consensus if there is disagreement.

I have added many reliable sources to the articles that I have edited, and the arbitrators can see that I have significantly improved most of the articles I have come across, compared to the original version. Let me clarify my stance on "punishing COI": currently SEO and other reputation managers, encourage their clients to have a shot at "managing" their rep through Misplaced Pages -- there is no harm in trying. When I seek to fix a COI article, I aim to research all kinds of information related to that topic, good or bad. I observe that on BLPs, we err on the side of keeping positive information and speedily remove poorly-sourced negative information. This is indeed, good policy, but it also creates an excess of promotionalism that persists on articles for years. My intentions are simply to improve articles, and make COI agents think twice. "Punishment" might seem extreme, but over the past several months, I have dealt with a wide range of IP hoppers who defied policy, because there were many incentives to keep trying to push a COI, and very few disincentives against it. elle vécut heureuse (be free) 03:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


Statement by Zhanzhao

LGDP, your insistence on "punishing COI" is not helping your case, as pointed out by Jimbo. You may not have realized it, but if your behaviour was allowed, it could set dangerous precedence. I'll take this chance to highlight the less than obvious dangers of allowing the "punishment of COI". Lets say I have something against a particular person. Instead of doing the obvious like adding negative comments about him/her, I would instead pose some positive glowing comments. Then, I either wait for an editor like you to come in to turn the article negative as punishment, or use an alternative account and do it myself, then claim that the negative parts must stay for a certain period of time as a punitive measure. Instead of taking the proper action of just neutralizing the COI edits. I feel this is a large can of worms we cannot afford to open.

I cannot imagine how Talk pages could devolve to with such "punishing COI" allowed. Will we be arguing on points like how much "punishment" or how long the "punishment" should last? Or may we even need to impose a "punishment" on the original "punishment" writeup? Where does is end? Its clearer to just neutralize the COI content.

I would like to reiterate that its not that we as a community have not tried to resolve this. Its been a number of months since the first incident was raised starting in ANI. I believe I was the one who raised the second ANI regarding her (accidental) misuse of admin tools. There's been others since. We have escalated from ANI to RfC a number of rounds, involving literally people from all levels from users to editors to admins to ArbCom and even Jimbo himself. Her fight against the anon IPs with POV is fine, the way she is doing it is not. And Anon ips can easily be dealth with by a semi protect. Zhanzhao (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/5/0/1)

I would Accept if this can be dealt with by motion - Elle seems to have so little understanding of WP:NPOV that some kind of lengthy and broad ban, or a total block, seems inevitable, and the RfC appears to have concluded by asking Arbcom to impose the ban. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Hold. Let's see what comes out from AN --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)