This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kharkiv07 (talk | contribs) at 16:42, 11 August 2016 (→Michael Hardy: Opening accepted case on behalf of the Arbitration Committee). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:42, 11 August 2016 by Kharkiv07 (talk | contribs) (→Michael Hardy: Opening accepted case on behalf of the Arbitration Committee)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Shortcut
Requests for arbitration
Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
---|---|---|---|
Ban appeal | 10 August 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
|
Ban appeal
Initiated by Antidiskriminator (talk) at 19:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Drmies (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 to ban discussion ammended after Softlavander pointed on the wrong link (diff)
- Link to first ban appeal
- Link to second ban appeal
- Link to last ban appeal, remain unclosed
Statement by Antidiskriminator
I was topic banned more than two years ago. The editor who decided to ban me (Drmies) can not unban me because the ban was based on the (limited) community consensus, so the community consensus is necessary for unban. On the other hand, my ban appeals do not attract the attention of enough uninvolved editors so they are either rejected by the (the same limited) community or remain unclosed (like my last ban appeal) even after I proposed lenghty probation period with heavy restrictions. I never violated the ban and had no serious issue with my edits, so I believe that the sanction imposed appears to be significantly excessive or overbroad and hereby I appeal to ARBCOM to lift it.
Statement by Drmies
Ha! It wasn't editor Drmies but admin Drmies who placed the ban, pursuant to a community discussion. AD, you've spun that record before, and it was not a club hit. As I've said at least three times already, I have no objection to the ban being lifted. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Mz7
As a procedural matter, this Committee stated when it disbanded BASC that it would directly hear ban appeals only from (i) from editors who are subject to an {{OversightBlock}} or a {{Checkuserblock}}; (ii) from editors who are blocked for reasons that are unsuitable for public discussion; and (iii) from editors blocked or banned by Arbitration and Arbitration Enforcement decisions.
As far as I am aware, you guys haven't modified this yet, and this request doesn't seem to fall into the three categories. (There's also a 2011 procedure on topic ban appeals, but that's for ArbCom topic bans only.) The Committee is, of course, not absolutely bound to follow its own procedures, but in this case, I think it does have the option of procedurally declining this request without comment on its merits. If you do decide to hear it, it might be worth revisiting those procedures sometime soon. Mz7 (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved Softlavender
As far as I can tell, the OP has never acknowledged that they understood why the topic ban was imposed. Nor have they linked to the original topic-ban discussion ]. Nor, per Mz7's notes, does this seem to fall under ArbCom's current purview. If the OP wants the current ANI topic-ban appeal discussion (bot-archived three weeks ago) to be officially closed, all they have to do is bring the discussion from its auto-archived state back onto ANI, and request that it receive an official administrative close (the request for closure can be made there on ANI or at AN). Softlavender (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC): edited 15:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
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).
Ban appeal: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/1/0>-Ban_appeal-2016-08-10T20:27:00.000Z">
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)
- I recuse, happily! Drmies (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)"> ">