Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:16, 7 September 2009

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Historical elections	13 Sep 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	Motion	none	26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	none	17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	8 September 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for amendment

Use this section:

To request changes to remedies or enforcement provisions, for example to make them stronger or deal with unforeseen problems.
To request lifting of an existing Arbitration sanction that is no longer needed (banned users may email the Ban Appeals Subcommittee directly)

How to file a request (please use this format!):

Go to this request template, and copy the text in the box at the bottom of the page.
Click here to edit the amendment subpage, and paste the template immediately below this box and above any other outstanding requests.
Using the format provided by the template, try to show exactly what you want amended and state your reasoning for the change in 1000 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. Although it should be kept short, you may add to your statement in future if needed as the word limit is not rigidly enforced. List any other users affected or involved. Sign your statement with ~~~~.
If your request will affect or involve other users, you must notify each involved person on their user talk page. Return to your request and provide diffs showing that other involved users have been notified in the section provided for notification.

This is not a page for discussion.

It may be to your advantage to paste the template into your user space or use an off-line text editor to compose your request before posting it here. The main Requests for arbitration page is not the place to work on rough drafts.
Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Requests that do not clearly state the following will be removed by Arbitrators or Clerks without comment:
1. The name of the case to be amended (which should be linked in the request header),
2. The clause(s) to be modified, referenced by number or section title as presented in the Final Decision,
3. The desired modifications to the aforementioned clause(s), and
4. A rationale for the change(s) of no more than 1000 words.
Requests from banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Committee.
Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are one of those individuals.

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong (3)

Case affected: Ryulong arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

(I'll let the clerks interpret what is requested for amendment)

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Amendment 1

(See below)
That all decisions that refer to Mythdon by the singular they be reworded to refer to Mythdon as a male.

This includes:

Findings of fact: "Mythdon's interpretation of policies and guidelines", "Mythdon stance toward the articles"
Remedies: "Mythdon admonished"

Statement by Mythdon

All other decisions that refer to me refer to me as a male (which I am), while the above decisions just use the singular they. This is inconsistent wording that needs to be addressed to make the decision wordings consistent. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Amendment 2

"Mythdon restricted and placed under mentorship"
That the strikeout of the text be replaced with the templates {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, with the heading text being "superseded remedy".

Statement by Mythdon

In Arbitration Cases of today, this format has been used for amended decisions. The conduct probation replaced the mentorship remedy. This will allow for consistency with the other ArbCom cases. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor (2)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Amendment 3

Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
Details of desired modification

Statement by Mythdon

Statement by other editor (2)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by Mythdon

As with the second amendment request which was made by Ncmvocalist, this will address the inconsistency issues in the formatting of case. I will be drafting my third request in the amendment request in a while. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this request. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Mythdon is banned for a period of six months. At the conclusion of the ban period, Mythdon will be on a six-month probationary period, to run under the current restrictions." - What will be done with the conduct probation, if the motion, or a similar motion passes? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MBisanz

Could the Committee please consider an amendment banning Mythdon from making requests more than once a year? This really has gone on long enough. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in light of [1], maybe just a site ban for 6 months would be sufficient. MBisanz ^talk 02:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hersfold

I second MBisanz's motion. This is getting ridiculous, and this request is nothing but pedantry that once again wastes the time of ArbCom and the clerks. Mythdon's behavior here is becoming severely disruptive, and that fact that he is back here again after a clear warning not to return the last time shows he has absolutely no intention of stopping. Mythdon needs to be banned from ArbCom pages at the very least, however I don't believe a site ban would be out of line considering MBisanz's diff above and Mythdon's predilection for similar disruptive by-the-book-ness elsewhere. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel

What they said. This has gone beyond ridiculous. It will be particularly humourous if it gets to the point where all the clerks have commented to express their opinion, and have hence recused, and therefore there'll be no-one left to process the absurd number of amendment and clarification requests he files. Daniel (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Recused MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recused once more. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recused. Daniel (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

Motions

Motion 1

There are 11 active arbitrators, so a majority is 6.

Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of six months. At the conclusion of the ban period, Mythdon will be on a six-month probationary period, to run under the current restrictions.

Support:

Mythdon has exhausted the patience of both the community and committee, this is now needed. Tweak if necessary. Wizardman 04:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recuse

@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 As with the second amendment request which was made by Ncmvocalist, this will address the inconsistency issues in the formatting of case. I will be drafting my third request in the amendment request in a while. <font color="green">[[User:Mythdon|Mythdon]]</font> (<font color="teal">[[User talk:Mythdon|talk]]</font> • <font color="teal">[[Special:Contributions/Mythdon|contribs]]</font>) 02:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 :I withdraw this request. <font color="green">[[User:Mythdon|Mythdon]]</font> (<font color="teal">[[User talk:Mythdon|talk]]</font> • <font color="teal">[[Special:Contributions/Mythdon|contribs]]</font>) 03:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
+''"Mythdon is banned for a period of six months. At the conclusion of the ban period, Mythdon will be on a six-month probationary period, to run under the current restrictions."'' - What will be done with the conduct probation, if the motion, or a similar motion passes? <font color="green">[[User:Mythdon|Mythdon]]</font> (<font color="teal">[[User talk:Mythdon|talk]]</font> • <font color="teal">[[Special:Contributions/Mythdon|contribs]]</font>) 04:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 ==== Statement by MBisanz ====