Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia 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 20:35, 11 August 2012 view sourceYoureallycan (talk | contribs)12,095 edits →Statement by Youreallycan: This failed RTV violator User:ChrisO - User:Prioryman has only very recently opened a RFC user about me - a few days ago - I have been working to try to address the issues there - this escalation to arbitration is t← Previous edit Revision as of 20:38, 11 August 2012 view source SirFozzie (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,150 edits →Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/1): Voting to accept (1/0/0/1), although I will recuse in the main case upon request by a party.Next edit →
Line 48: Line 48:
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''


=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/1) === === Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/1) ===
*Awaiting statements, but I've been following the RfC, and I'm afraid we are going to have to accept this case unless there is some meaningful progress toward a positive outcome there. My impression is that Youreallycan's responses to the RfC have alternated between expressing interest in sincerely addressing the issues raised, and angrily lashing out at editors whom he dislikes. He needs to decide very soon which of these approaches he wishes to adopt, and live with the consequences of his choice. ] (]) 20:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC) *Awaiting statements, but I've been following the RfC, and I'm afraid we are going to have to accept this case unless there is some meaningful progress toward a positive outcome there. My impression is that Youreallycan's responses to the RfC have alternated between expressing interest in sincerely addressing the issues raised, and angrily lashing out at editors whom he dislikes. He needs to decide very soon which of these approaches he wishes to adopt, and live with the consequences of his choice. ] (]) 20:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
::I suggest that Youreallycan think very carefully about what he wants to post in response to this request, before posting anything else. His initial reactions above are not encouraging. ] (]) 20:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC) ::I suggest that Youreallycan think very carefully about what he wants to post in response to this request, before posting anything else. His initial reactions above are not encouraging. ] (]) 20:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
*I was initially encouraged at some of the statements that Youreallycan posted looking towards addressing the issues raised, however, with his comments here and elsewhere, he is attempting not to play "Defense", (ie, addressing the concerns that other users have raised), but try to mount an offensive (What does Prioryman's prior accounts have to do with the main thrust of the RFC, of which a pretty good majority is "Yes, there are problems with Youreallycan's editing", even amongst his supporters). For that reason, I am voting to '''Accept''', although I will recuse in the main case if either of the main parties requests it. ] (]) 20:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:38, 11 August 2012

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Youreallycan   11 August 2012 {{{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.

Youreallycan

Initiated by Prioryman (talk) at 20:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Statement by Prioryman

The subject of this arbitration request, Youreallycan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has a persistent problem with personal attacks and edit-warring. In the last seven months, he has racked up 7 blocks and a further 12 blocks between March 2009 - November 2011 under his former username, Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He has been blocked 12 times for disruptive editing / edit-warring / 3RR violations, 6 times for personal attacks and 1 time for (disputed) legal threats. Just under a week ago I began an RfC/U concerning his conduct (Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Youreallycan‎) in which several dozen editors have participated. The evidence at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Youreallycan#Evidence of disputed behaviour is a small sample of the many, many incidents which have come up at AN/I and elsewhere. During the RfC/U, YRC made more personal attacks against other editors , , including myself, and has edit-warred in the RfC/U itself. There has been a very strong consensus that his behaviour is unacceptable and needs to change immediately or be resolved forcefully (note Coren's comments in particular).

Over the last 24 hours or so he posted comments to the RfC/U's talk page that suggested he would be amenable to editing with restrictions. However, he has today posted further personal attacks against myself , restored a personal attack after it was hidden by another editor , and edit-warred on my own user talk page . These are exactly the behaviours for which the RfC/U was raised in the first place, and his continued misconduct, even while talking about possible solutions, makes it clear that he is unwilling or more likely unable to change his spots. The community has had to deal with this editor many times before but has been unable to come up with a satisfactory solution, and the most recent attempt, a mentorship, was repudiated by YRC after only 2 months. It's plain that there is nothing short of arbitration that is likely to resolve this, and so I bring this case here for your consideration. Prioryman (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Added: YRC's comments below, focusing entirely on attacking me and completely ignoring the issue of his own conduct, are a good demonstration of the problem. Prioryman (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Youreallycan

CautionPrevious account was User:Off2riorob

This User:ChrisO is a failed clean starter and a user previously restricted on multiple occasions at arbitration - that good faith users see this as an attempt to rewove the lnk between his editing restrictions and his new account - and has also been dysopped by the committee - and has demeaned WP:Vanish with his failed return. that he still to this day refuses to accept - Youreallycan 20:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This failed RTV violator User:ChrisO - User:Prioryman has only very recently opened a RFC user about me - a few days ago - I have been working to try to address the issues there - this escalation to arbitration is totally undue - Youreallycan 20:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Prioryman

Statement by {Party 2}

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/1)

  • Awaiting statements, but I've been following the RfC, and I'm afraid we are going to have to accept this case unless there is some meaningful progress toward a positive outcome there. My impression is that Youreallycan's responses to the RfC have alternated between expressing interest in sincerely addressing the issues raised, and angrily lashing out at editors whom he dislikes. He needs to decide very soon which of these approaches he wishes to adopt, and live with the consequences of his choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that Youreallycan think very carefully about what he wants to post in response to this request, before posting anything else. His initial reactions above are not encouraging. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I was initially encouraged at some of the statements that Youreallycan posted looking towards addressing the issues raised, however, with his comments here and elsewhere, he is attempting not to play "Defense", (ie, addressing the concerns that other users have raised), but try to mount an offensive (What does Prioryman's prior accounts have to do with the main thrust of the RFC, of which a pretty good majority is "Yes, there are problems with Youreallycan's editing", even amongst his supporters). For that reason, I am voting to Accept, although I will recuse in the main case if either of the main parties requests it. SirFozzie (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions Add topic