Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Help

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:41, 6 December 2017

Shortcut

WP:ARC

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

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

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, 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-llists.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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=814115023"

Hidden categories:

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
 {{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=45%</noinclude>}}
-== [[List of current NHL captains and alternate captains]] Dispute ==
-'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Fhsig13|Fhsig13]] ([[User talk:Fhsig13|talk]]) '''at''' 21:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
-=== Involved parties ===
-<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
-*{{userlinks|Fhsig13}}, ''filing party''
-*{{userlinks|GoodDay}}
-*{{userlinks|Nurmsook}}
-;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. -->
-*[diff of notification [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]]]
-*[diff of notification [[User:Nurmsook|Nurmsook]]]
-;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
-* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring
-=== Statement by Fhsig13 ===
-Hello, I am an avid Vancouver Canucks fan, that noticed a mistake on the page (that'd I previously fixed), that being that Bo Horvat was not included as an Alternate Captain. I provided sources to show that he wore the "A" on his jersey in rotation with teamates Christopher Tanev, Brandon Sutter, Alexander Edler, and Michael Del Zotto between last season ( the 2016-17 NHL season) and now, however the two editors I stated insist that last season is not relevant, however I believe that Bo Horvat deserves inclusion on the list, on the grounds that he has served as an alternate captain in rotation since it's last permanent assignment, (Alexandre Burrows, ~2009-10 NHL season). I have made this all very clear in the article's talk page, however these two and [[User:Ravenswing]], whom I did not report as he did not make any reversions to the content in question), insisted upon starting an edit war. I thank the arbitrators in advance for their help in resolving this matter. (P.S. I did report them for edit-warring, however the admins found them not guilty despite a long list of diffs proving it so). Fhsig13 (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
-:I have tried everything suggested here and on my talk page, however [[User:Nurmsook|Nurmsook]] and [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] simply will not listen to my point of view and the "no violation" verdict was invalidly placed by an inexperienced Admin, as I clearly showed more than 3 reverts within a day (Dec 1 by [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]]).I urge you to please reconsider your verdict on hearing the matter, as these two despicable gentlemen insist on having everything THEIR petty way, and it is ruining an otherwise valuable article. Thank you, [[User:Fhsig13|Fhsig13]] ([[User talk:Fhsig13|talk]]) 22:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
-@[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]], @[[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] I am asking politely that we all please refrain from further disputing until the Arbitrators review this request. I will be more than happy to hold discussions on the subject with you all at that time, however this exchange is pointless until then.Thank you, [[User:Fhsig13|Fhsig13]] ([[User talk:Fhsig13|talk]]) 21:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
-@Softlavender: Thank you for your input. I have tried some such things, but to no avail, thus I have gone to the last resort possible. [[User:Fhsig13|Fhsig13]] ([[User talk:Fhsig13|talk]]) 22:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
-=== Statement by [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ===
-Recommend that Arbcom reject the request. I don't think I need to explain why. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
-No objections, Floq. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
-=== Statement by [[User:Nurmsook|Nurmsook]] ===
-At this point I would argue that the user appears to be abusing Wikipedia processes. There was a pretty clear dismissal of Fhsig13's claim that GoodDay and I engaged in edit warring, which the user is now claiming was an incorrect finding. This user has escalated this far beyond what is necessary; Fhsig13 hasn't even engaged in an [[WP:RFC]], and has ignored the current consensus at the talk page of the page in question. Multiple experienced users and admins have now commented that the user in question has not used their available options in engaging the community. I request that this be rejected. – <font color="black">[[User:Nurmsook|Nurmsook!]]</font> <sup>''[[User talk:Nurmsook|<font color="darkblue">talk...</font>]]''</sup> 22:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Floq ===
-{{ping|GoodDay}}, I'm trying to save everyone some time and get the filer to withdraw.  Since you've already commented, any objection to just roundfiling this thing before a clerk or arb comments? --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 21:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
-:Nevermind, user does not wish to withdraw. I obviously recommend declining the case, not all attempts at dispute resolution have been tried. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 21:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
-::I have explained to [[User:Fhsig13]] on his talk page that if he continues to behave like this (his most recent post here, and his most recent post on the article talk page), I will block him.  I suggest that the "friendly advice to a newbie" phase is over, and the "knock it off now or else" phase has begun. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 22:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
-===Statement by uninvolved Softlavender===
-{{U|Fhsig13}}, you are a very inexperienced Wikipedia editor, so it's somewhat understandable that you would make this mistake, but the Arbitration Committee, despite its name, does not at all handle this type of thing. What you want instead is to work things out on the Talk page of the relevant article(s), until a [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] is reached. You can also post a neutral request for addition input on [[WT:WikiProject Ice Hockey]] and [[Talk:National Hockey League]] so that other knowledgeable editors may join in. If '''''after a consensus is clear''''' you are still not satisfied, you could attempt one of the forms of Wikipedia '''[[WP:DR|Dispute Resolution]]'''. Examples would be the [[WP:DRN|Dispute Resolution Noticeboard]]; or starting a neutral brief [[WP:RFC|Request For Comment]]; or asking for a [[WP:3O|Third Opinion]]. -- [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 22:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
-{{Re|Fhsig13}} Anyone can see from your edit history [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fhsig13] that you haven't tried any of the things I have suggested. Please read my post again carefully and take whichever course of action you prefer, because ArbCom is going to reject this case, since it is not within their purview. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 22:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
-=== Statement by power~enwiki ===
-This case should be declined.
-The arbitration committee generally does not involve itself in content disputes; [[WP:DRN]] or [[WP:MEDCOM]] would be the correct forum for that.  As far as any behavioral concerns, I see no plausible case for any action at this time, including [[WP:BOOMERANG]] sanctions.  There's also an argument that [[List of current NHL captains and alternate captains]] should not exist at all, but that would be discussed at [[WP:AfD]]. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 22:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
-=== Statement by MRD2014 ===
-Arbcom should decline this. Way too early in the dispute resolution process. Arbcom cases are a '''last resort''' for disputes. —'''[[User:MRD2014|<span style="color:red">MRD2014</span>]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:MRD2014|<span style="color:green">Happy Holidays!</span>]]</sup> 02:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
-<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->
-=== Statement by Mendaliv ===
-I needn't repeat what my learned colleagues above have stated about this case request, other than that it should be '''declined'''.
-I will, however, take this opportunity to repeat my recent concerns with the Committee's lack of a sensible means of speedily declining case requests like these, which are improper on the face of the request. In this case, we have a case request that solely requests arbitration of a content dispute. In other recent case requests, we have had ripeness issues, again, blatantly apparent on the face of the request. Such case requests are not merely wastes of Committee time and resources, but can be used to intimidate and harass named parties—until fairly recently, I would have probably spent an hour or two in a panic researching Committee procedure and standards simply to respond to a case request as a named party, simply because of unfamiliarity with the Committee. Please consider some means of addressing this perennial problem. —/[[User:Mendaliv|'''M'''<small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 08:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
-:{{re|Euryalus}} Respectfully, I've not set out to propose a complete procedural system, but merely the general framework of one. The "risk of abuse" concern is one that is both easily addressed and, frankly, the benefits outweigh this risk. We do not need a full-dress accept/decline vote for case requests which are inappropriate for arbitration on the face of the request—that is, without requiring any research into the background of the dispute or clicking on any links, but merely from reading the request itself. As I've stated before, the procedure may take the form of delisting the request and requiring it to be amended before refiling. The incoming subpage/transclusion system makes this a trivial change. —/[[User:Mendaliv|'''M'''<small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 12:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Ravenswing ===
-While I don't need to be telling Arbcom its business, I wouldn't even categorize this as so much of an edit dispute than that of a very inexperienced editor convinced he's right and that therefore everyone else must be wrong, and on a startlingly minor issue to boot.  If anything, a gentle nudge towards mentoring programs to better inform him of how Wikipedia's collaborative environment works would be A Good Thing. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#7F00FF;color:#00FFFF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''']] 14:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
-:{{reply|Only}} Seems, obviously, like his notion of an "experienced" admin would be one who let him have his way.  I'm coming around to think that my earlier notion of a "gentle nudge" should be replaced by a [[WP:TROUT|trout slap]]. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#7F00FF;color:#00FFFF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''']] 07:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Only ===
-This is probably pointless since we're just a few votes from declining and I wasn't planning to waste my own time here, but I need to defend myself.  First...I've been called inexperienced.  As an administrator since 2006 with over 30,000 edits to my name, I'm curious as to what is expected by this user to be considered an "experienced" administrator.  Second...my 3RR decline was perfectly valid.  GoodDay made 4 reverts that day... 3 to the work of others... then 1 to his own revert canceling that 3rd revert.  So, only 2 reverts to be considered for the 3RR rule.  This is slowly going from many experienced users (except me: I'm inexperienced) trying to help a newer user out to a question about competence.  [[User:Only|only]] ([[User talk:Only#top|talk]]) 23:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
-=== Statement by BU Rob13 ===
-{{re|Euryalus}} We actually ''do'' have current procedures for clerks along those lines, where a clerk can remove a frivolous request with only one arbitrator's approval. See [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Procedures#When_to_take_action]]. In practice, that's never actually done. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 13:29, 6 December 2017 (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.
-<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->
-=== Clerk notes ===
-:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
-*
-=== [[List of current NHL captains and alternate captains]] Dispute: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/7/0> ===
-{{anchor|1=[[List of current NHL captains and alternate captains]] Dispute: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small>
-*'''Decline''' as premature. The discussion at [[Talk:List of current NHL captains and alternate captains#Canucks Alternates]] has barely had an opportunity reach a consensus and the edit warring report was concluded as "[[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:_Nurmsook_and_User:GoodDay_reported_by_User:Fhsig13_(Result:No_violation_)|no violation]]". Other forms of [[WP:DISPUTE|dispute resolution]] have yet to be exhausted; a mandatory [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Expectation_of_prior_dispute_resolution|prerequisite]] for ArbCom cases. '''[[User:Mkdw|<span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw</span>]]''' [[User talk:Mkdw|<sup>''<span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk</span>''</sup>]] 22:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' - {{u|Fhsig13}}, there's some good advice on your talkpage about alternative dispute resolution options. I understand what you're arguing about Bo Horvat but the way to resolve the issue is through discussion with other editors working on that article, and then through things like an [[WP:RFC|RfC]] or the [[WP:DRN|dispute resolution noticeboard]]. In passing, agree with some commenters above that this will also be a speedy decline - hopefully we get enough Arbs to vote in short order, so this doesn't drag on. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 04:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
-:*{{yo|Mendaliv}} a speedy-decline would be useful on occasions like this, but there'd be a risk of misuse - one advantage of a 15-person committee is the range of views it represents; if we could close case requests with (say) net four oppose after 24 hours, we'd risk excluding some valid views. The ideal solution would be Committee members who were online more often, or more readily marked inactive if not around for a few days. Maybe we should have asked the incoming arbs about this in their candidate questions. Ah well, next year. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 10:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
-::*{{yo|Mendaliv}} noted, let's see if the new system for case requests delivers that worthwhile outcome. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 12:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
-:::*{{yo|BU Rob13}} True, but applicability is a bit limited - obviously requests that are simply vandalism get removed already, but for example this request contains a "genuine dispute resolution grievance" - just not one that needs to be heard here. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 19:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' per above. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 07:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''', and please take the good adivce you've been given here and on your talk page. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 07:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' per others above, who have given you some "A" quality advice. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 10:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' per above. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 18:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 22:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)