Revision as of 17:20, 26 January 2016 view sourceMiniapolis (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators72,009 edits →Future Perfect at Sunrise: Removing request for arbitration; declined by the committee← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:13, 3 February 2016 view source Jeppiz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,038 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}} | <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}} | ||
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}} | ||
== Muhammad == | |||
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 15:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
=== Involved parties === | |||
<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator --> | |||
*{{userlinks|Jeppiz}}, ''filing party'' | |||
*{{userlinks|Eperoton}} | |||
*{{userlinks|EdJohnston}} | |||
;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. --> | |||
* | |||
* | |||
;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
* Link 1 | |||
* Link 2 | |||
=== Statement by Jeppiz === | |||
For months, even years, ] sees frequent disputes and edit wars, often leading to ANIs, AN3s, and locks on the article. Admin ] approached me about the constant mess and I suggested imposing 1RR on all users and limiting the article to users here for at least 30 days. I took the idea to the talk page of dispute, pinged all active users and suggested this idea of 1RR and 30 days , and almost all users agreed . ] next advised me to discuss this with a user with an opposite viewpoint and together bring the suggestion here. I discussed it with ] , a great user here for all the right reasons. I pick Eperoton to make sure the proposal is not biased towards one side; every time there has been an RfC on the talk page, Eperoton and I have had opposite views. In almost every discussion on the article, our opinions have differed. If there are "two sets" of users, as ] asked me about, I think it's fair to say that ] and I represent different sets. At the same time, I have the deepest respect for Eperoton, who is polite, well-read, well-behaved, makes convincing arguments and finds good sources. As I told EdJohnston when asked, even if there are two sets, it's not a matter of one set being right or wrong, or one being better behaved. There are great users and less good ones in both sets. Still, the article has often spired out of control. Sometimes due to socking but more often due to established users ignoring ] and/or ignoring consensuses. I believe a general 1RR would work wonders, and to avoid socking to get past 1RR, imposing a rule that new editors must have 30 days seniority to edit. Having received the support of ] for this proposal, and the strong support for it on the talk page, I act upon ]'s proposal to come here to request that Muhammad, along the lines of ARBPIA, be placed under a strict 1RR and that no accounts younger than 30 days can edit. I genuinely think this would work wonders, it would decrease tensions (particularly if combined with an enforced ] on the talk page) and, hopefully, spare admins '''a lot''' of wasted time on repeated ANI and AN3 disputes.<br> | |||
Last, I name ] and ] as I have discussed this proposal with them both. Naming them doesn't imply any wrong doing on their behalf, quite the opposite. The aim of this proposal is not to target or punish any particular users, but to establish a framework of rules that will make editing easier, better and more enjoyable for all users involved, regardless of their views. | |||
=== Statement by Eperoton === | |||
=== Statement by EdJohnston === | |||
=== 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. | |||
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * --> | |||
=== Clerk notes === | |||
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
* | |||
=== Muhammad: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0> === | |||
{{anchor|1=Muhammad: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small> | |||
* |
Revision as of 15:13, 3 February 2016
Requests for arbitration
Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
---|---|---|---|
Muhammad | 3 February 2016 | {{{votes}}} |
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 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsRequest name | Motions | Case | Posted |
---|---|---|---|
Amendment request: American politics 2 | none | (orig. case) | 15 January 2025 |
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.
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.
General guidance
|
Muhammad
Initiated by Jeppiz (talk) at 15:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Jeppiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Eperoton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- EdJohnston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 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 Jeppiz
For months, even years, Muhammad sees frequent disputes and edit wars, often leading to ANIs, AN3s, and locks on the article. Admin EdJohnston approached me about the constant mess and I suggested imposing 1RR on all users and limiting the article to users here for at least 30 days. I took the idea to the talk page of dispute, pinged all active users and suggested this idea of 1RR and 30 days , and almost all users agreed . EdJohnston next advised me to discuss this with a user with an opposite viewpoint and together bring the suggestion here. I discussed it with Eperoton , a great user here for all the right reasons. I pick Eperoton to make sure the proposal is not biased towards one side; every time there has been an RfC on the talk page, Eperoton and I have had opposite views. In almost every discussion on the article, our opinions have differed. If there are "two sets" of users, as EdJohnston asked me about, I think it's fair to say that Eperoton and I represent different sets. At the same time, I have the deepest respect for Eperoton, who is polite, well-read, well-behaved, makes convincing arguments and finds good sources. As I told EdJohnston when asked, even if there are two sets, it's not a matter of one set being right or wrong, or one being better behaved. There are great users and less good ones in both sets. Still, the article has often spired out of control. Sometimes due to socking but more often due to established users ignoring WP:BRD and/or ignoring consensuses. I believe a general 1RR would work wonders, and to avoid socking to get past 1RR, imposing a rule that new editors must have 30 days seniority to edit. Having received the support of Eperoton for this proposal, and the strong support for it on the talk page, I act upon EdJohnston's proposal to come here to request that Muhammad, along the lines of ARBPIA, be placed under a strict 1RR and that no accounts younger than 30 days can edit. I genuinely think this would work wonders, it would decrease tensions (particularly if combined with an enforced WP:NPA on the talk page) and, hopefully, spare admins a lot of wasted time on repeated ANI and AN3 disputes.
Last, I name Eperoton and EdJohnston as I have discussed this proposal with them both. Naming them doesn't imply any wrong doing on their behalf, quite the opposite. The aim of this proposal is not to target or punish any particular users, but to establish a framework of rules that will make editing easier, better and more enjoyable for all users involved, regardless of their views.
Statement by Eperoton
Statement by EdJohnston
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.
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Muhammad: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0>-Muhammad">
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)