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 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 Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Muhammad   3 February 2016 {{{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.

Muhammad

Initiated by Jeppiz (talk) at 15:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Involved parties

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)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions Add topic