Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] 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 21:29, 8 September 2014 view sourceIhardlythinkso (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers75,451 edits →Statement by {Non-party}: +comment← Previous edit Revision as of 21:44, 8 September 2014 view source Robert McClenon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers197,490 edits →Statement by Robert McClenon: moreNext edit →
Line 50: Line 50:
The Arbitration Committee is asked to open a case to consider user conduct issues at the GGTF. The Arbitration Committee is asked to open a case to consider user conduct issues at the GGTF.
] (]) 16:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC) ] (]) 16:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

:The Wikiproject on countering systemic bias, and the Gender Gap Task Force, are ongoing activities for the improvement of Misplaced Pages. The Gender Gap Task Force (GGTF) is being disrupted by disparaging comments by two editors (EC and TKOP) who are not participants in the task force who question the need to address the gender gap, and by hostility by one participant in the task force (SPECIFICO) to another participant in the task force (CM). The ANI was closed inconclusively. A full evidentiary case is needed to identify the issues more fully. It is requested that the ArbCom consider whether topic bans for disruptive editing or interaction bans are necessary. ] (]) 21:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Eric Corbett === === Statement by Eric Corbett ===
=== Statement by Two kinds of pork === === Statement by Two kinds of pork ===

Revision as of 21:44, 8 September 2014

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Gender Gap Task Force Issues   8 September 2014 {{{votes}}}
Praveen Togadia dispute   7 September 2014 {{{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
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: American politics 2 none (orig. case) 15 January 2025
Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

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.

Gender Gap Task Force Issues

Initiated by Robert McClenon (talk) at 16:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Carolmooredc: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ACarolmooredc&diff=624688611&oldid=624677750

Eric Corbett: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AEric_Corbett&diff=624688858&oldid=624686942

Two kinds of pork https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ATwo_kinds_of_pork&diff=624689176&oldid=624112702

SPECIFICO https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ASPECIFICO&diff=624689498&oldid=624236287


Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=624112438

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=624433683&oldid=624432719

Closed version of ANI thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=624420359&oldid=624419734#Disruption_of_Wikiproject

Statement by Robert McClenon

Recent reports of disruption of the Gender Gap Task Force, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force, were taken to WP:ANI and were closed inconclusively. The suggestion was made that the issue of disruption of the GGTF should be addressed by the ArbCom. The founder of Misplaced Pages concurred: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=624271238&oldid=624271124

The Arbitration Committee is asked to open a case to consider user conduct issues at the GGTF. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The Wikiproject on countering systemic bias, and the Gender Gap Task Force, are ongoing activities for the improvement of Misplaced Pages. The Gender Gap Task Force (GGTF) is being disrupted by disparaging comments by two editors (EC and TKOP) who are not participants in the task force who question the need to address the gender gap, and by hostility by one participant in the task force (SPECIFICO) to another participant in the task force (CM). The ANI was closed inconclusively. A full evidentiary case is needed to identify the issues more fully. It is requested that the ArbCom consider whether topic bans for disruptive editing or interaction bans are necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Eric Corbett

Statement by Two kinds of pork

Statement by SPECIFICO

Statement by Carolmooredc

Statement by {Non-party}

Comment by Ihardlythinkso

ANI was closed inconclusively?! Perhaps you simply didn't like the close and are now forum shopping. The close clearly implied that grounds for allegation of disruption were misconstrued. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Gender Gap Task Force Issues: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0>

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

Praveen Togadia dispute

Initiated by Kautilya3 (talk) at 15:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties


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

Statement by Kautilya3

Bladesmulti has repeatedly deleted sourced content on the Praveen Togadia page:

His justifications for removing the content ranged from "it is not notable" to "nobody agreed with the petition". Each time he removed it, I provided more justification, which included references to national newspapers, endorsements by professional journals, a request for dispute resolution (which was closed by him) and a reference to BLP/N (made by User:AmritasyaPutra) which received a detailed response from me. His last statement "We have enough reliable sources for claiming that world will end in 2012. Doesn't means we promote such gossips, you have to verify each" shows his limited understanding of sources and reliability of sources. Even without receiving any support on DR/N or BLP/N, he deleted the content again this morning. I am requesting that he be informed of the Misplaced Pages policies and cautioned. -- Kautilya3

@Linadashiers: I can confirm that I have read the BLP policies more than once. Can you tell me what principles of BLP are violated by this content? Kautilya3 (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
@Lindashiers: I was always given to believe that we don't try to evaluate primary sources on Misplaced Pages. We depend on secondary sources to do it for us. The fact that their petition was reported in the national newspapers and national journals is what we are mentioning. It is not our job to evaluate the organisation. It looks like you are in need of refreshing our policies on WP:RS. Secondly, I am not "POV pushing". I am merely writing up what is reported in the media and other sources. If there were positive statements made there, I would be glad to include them too. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I am also quite cognizant of the presumption of innocence principles. My writing in the article never accused him of anything. It merely reported on accusations that others have made. In a country where law and order is sluggish and the powerful people can easily manipulate the government machinery to subvert the law, spreading information is all that the poor victims can hope for. You are saying we have to put a lid on the spread of information? For what purpose?

Another user called User:Lindashiers, who joined this dispute as a "non-party" has now deleted a large amount of sourced content from the Praveen Togadia page:

and started accusing the source, award-winning journalist Dionne Bunsha, as being biased. His/her comments said "Who received large sums of money and fellowships from overseas sources .. to write such books ???" As a result, I am afraid this user is also now a party to the dispute.

Note added I see 2 decline votes at this stage, and I am expecting that the overall result is likely to be "decline". Can this be referred to an administrator who knows the policies and can caution the editors involved (under the ARBIPA perhaps)? There is a group of editors that have been campaigning for information to be suppressed, and these are the same editors that are participating in the BLP/N discussion. The BLP experts are not getting involved. So, that discussion is going nowhere. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Bladesmulti

1 diff include no 'deletion', 3 of them matters, I removed them because it is some petition by non-notable school students, "Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox or means of promotion" like we all know. Anyone file petition and get on the news. It is just a petition, there is hardly any limit. If allegation has not been proved or investigated, it should not be added to article. I am not sure what Kautilya3 meant from "without receiving support on DR/N or BLP/N", because DRN section was closed under few minutes. On BLPN Kautilya3 is the one having no support. As the content was newly added and violation of BLP it was legible for quick removal. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Also the section on BLPN is being actively discussed. See Bladesmulti (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by AmritasyaPutra

Statement by Vanamonde93

Statement by {Non-party}

This is a frivolous petition which deserves to be rejected outright. User:Bladesmulti has upheld Misplaced Pages principles by his BLP edits/ reverts, which core principles the filing party would be well advised to read, before rushing here. Lindashiers (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Unproven allegations (or deliberately made to a forum lacking jurisdiction) cannot be placed in a BLP article per WP:BLPCRIME, WP:WELLKNOWN. Lindashiers (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Since some of these libels you are POV pushing for are made by the Pune-based "Medico Friend Circle" please read their own website , , and see if this "organisation" has any credibility whatsoever. In any case the MFC's 2003 complaint, tellingly, seems to have been taken down from their website . Lindashiers (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


Clerk notes

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

Praveen Togadia dispute: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/3/0/0>-Praveen_Togadia_dispute-2014-09-07T20:28:00.000Z">

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

  • Decline to open an arbitration case. Arbitration is the last step of Misplaced Pages dispute resolution. It is an adversarial and lengthy process that should be used only if the issues cannot be resolved through other means. Here, the discussion on the BLP noticeboard is continuing and it appears the relevant points are being made there. I urge all interested editors to participate in that discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)"> ">
  • Decline as not ripe for arbitration. If necessary, this dispute can be referred to arbitration enforcement for the imposition of discretionary sanctions under the terms of WP:ARBIPA. Salvio 20:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline per the above. Seraphimblade 04:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions Add topic