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 09:16, 23 January 2010 view sourceMBisanz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users126,668 edits +case req← Previous edit Revision as of 09:18, 23 January 2010 view source MBisanz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users126,668 edits →Involved parties: +diffsNext edit →
Line 16: Line 16:
;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request ;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*
*
*
*
*
*

*


;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
Line 26: Line 26:
*] *]
*] *]

=== Statement by MBisanz === === Statement by MBisanz ===
{{user|Malinaccier}} protected ] per a request at ] for edit warring/content dispute. {{user|Coffee}} edited through the protection to include a new paragraph relating to ] in light of a recent ] on BLP deletions. {{user|Sandstein}} instructed Coffee to self-revert and when Coffee refused, Sandstein blocked him for 24 hours. {{user|OverlordQ}} then edited through the protection to revert Coffee's edit citing ]. {{user|Malinaccier}} protected ] per a request at ] for edit warring/content dispute. {{user|Coffee}} edited through the protection to include a new paragraph relating to ] in light of a recent ] on BLP deletions. {{user|Sandstein}} instructed Coffee to self-revert and when Coffee refused, Sandstein blocked him for 24 hours. {{user|OverlordQ}} then edited through the protection to revert Coffee's edit citing ].

Revision as of 09:18, 23 January 2010

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
WP:PROD wheel war   23 January 2010 {{{votes}}}
Craigy144   20 January 2010 {{{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.

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.

WP:PROD wheel war

Initiated by MBisanz at 09:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by MBisanz

Malinaccier (talk · contribs) protected WP:PROD per a request at WP:RFPP for edit warring/content dispute. Coffee (talk · contribs) edited through the protection to include a new paragraph relating to BLPs in light of a recent motion on BLP deletions. Sandstein (talk · contribs) instructed Coffee to self-revert and when Coffee refused, Sandstein blocked him for 24 hours. OverlordQ (talk · contribs) then edited through the protection to revert Coffee's edit citing WP:BRD.

Coffee should not have edited WP:PROD since he was involved per his edits at the original RFAR. Sandstein should not have blocked as he was involved per his comments at the RFAR leading to the motion in question, because he had expressed a view on the motion at an RFC, and because he has been a content editor of the WP:PROD page in the past . OverlordQ was also involved in it and should not have edited WP:PROD because he was involved per his comments on the original RFAR at . Clearly the throwing around of these edits and blocks by involved admins requires Committee intervention. MBisanz 09:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by {Party 2}

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

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


Craigy144

Initiated by Guy (Help!) at 18:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Statement by JzG

Craigy144 is an administrator. As the AN thread cited shows, he is currently blocked for systematic violation of copyright policy. There appears to be consensus that this is incompatible with his status as an administrator. Separately, he is currently blocked for copyright violation.

I would request that the arbitration committee review this case speedily and decide whether a desysop is warranted, what other sanctions may be merited, and for what duration. Specifically, I think that if there is to be a discussion of any mitigation (e.g. a sincere belief that he was in the right), this is the right venue since this is distinctly sensitive and I don't think we need WP:PITCHFORKS. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai

Barring the emergence of private issues the motion should probably be voted on on-wiki. Assuming the underlying facts are not at issue, the larger question is cut and dry: repeated copyright infringement is not consistent with even the lowest standards of good judgment and sense required of an administrator. Or an editor.--Tznkai (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by involved MLauba

To keep this brief, I reaffirm the statements I made at ANI and stand by them. I blocked Craigy144 after reviewing the first entries added to today's due WP:CP listing, finding October 2008 warning that an ODNB author had complained about copyright infringement, took note of both Craigy144's admin status and the fact that he had not edited since January 3rd.

At that stage, under the impression that there was an ongoing pattern not only of systematic copyright violation but also misuse of a Public Domain attribution template and a pattern of ignoring warnings, I decided to issue a block, selected an indefinite duration for it to ensure the block would still be in place when and if the user returns, and submitted my course of action for review at ANI.

I concur with the sentiments expressed by Guy and Tznkai that no matter what else goes down, the function of administrator on enwiki should not be maintained under the present circumstances until Craigy144 explains himself, acknowledges the issues, helps the cleanup effort arising from his actions, and spends editing time without further copyvio issues. I will also join the two aforementioned editors in recommending an expedited process with no drama.

For completeness, Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/Craigy144, once populated, will also be material to this request. MLauba (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Blood Red Sandman

Since initiators normally leave a statement and it was I who first emailed Arbcom, I feel obliged. Craigy is generally viewed by eveyone who has thus far commented at ANI as no longer suitable for being an admin. In the interests of dramah reduction, I shall now shut up, except to say: Alexandr! I never realised you could be found round Arbcom! Blood Red Sandman 12:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Craigy144 has been advised that he may request temporary unblocking for the purpose of commenting here. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/6)

  • Decline Normally I wouldn't vote until all parties had a chance to promote this statement, but the matter has already been brought to the attention of ArbCom, and we are considering possible responses and actions to this issue. SirFozzie (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline full case; in favor of handling this by summary motion. I do not believe that the underlying facts are in question, and absent a compelling explanation from Craigy144 they would justify a desysop. Hold this request open until Craigy144 has had the opportunity to provide an explanation or that it is clear that no such explanation is forthcoming. — Coren  19:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Leaning towards accept as the evidence so far doesn't seem controversial but I would like to hear from Craigy144 first. On the face of it, this can probably be best dealt with by open motion here, unless compelling reasons to hear it in private are made.  Roger Davies 20:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Handle by open motion after waiting for an explanation by Craigy144 Fritzpoll (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Per Fritzpoll. Steve Smith (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Hold pending a response from Craigy, although I agree this probably doesn't need a full case. Waiting to see what Craigy's response is before I decline/accept, although at the moment this definitely doesn't seem like full case material. Hersfold 22:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Hold (for a few days, if necessary) so that we can hear from Craigy144. Clerks, please note that Craigy144 is currently indefinitely blocked; please ensure that there is a notice on his talk page advising him that he may request unblocking for the purpose of addressing this issue, should he prefer to do so onwiki rather than via email. Risker (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Hold until we hear from Craigy and agree that this is unlikely to need a full case. Shell 16:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Hold for now per comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - waiting for Craigy144 to make a statement. He may not turn up for some time. I will note here that he has not misused his administrator tools, so if he responds adequately, I'm not seeing a reason to accept a case here, or take any action. A request for comments seems a better approach. The key here is to get Craigy144 responding to concerns. Ultimately, if he remains unresponsive to concerns, that would be reason to take action, as taking action based on the concerns expressed here would need a case to examine what took place, and to confirm or reject the verdicts reached earlier (I'm not contesting the verdict that led to the block, I'm saying that accepting that verdict without examining the evidence would not be right - and the CCI page shows there is potentially a lot to look at). Carcharoth (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline for now. He's blocked. If he does something crazy or doesn't offer any explanations for his actions, he can be desysopped, but there's no reason to act until he responds. Cool Hand Luke 22:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions Add topic