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 15:06, 18 July 2012 view sourceNenpog (talk | contribs)453 edits open a request← Previous edit Revision as of 15:24, 18 July 2012 view source Nenpog (talk | contribs)453 edits filling outNext edit →
Line 8: Line 8:
=== Involved parties === === Involved parties ===
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> <!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|username1}}, ''filing party'' *{{userlinks|Nenpog}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|username2}} *{{userlinks|Doc James}}
*{{userlinks|username3}} *{{userlinks|Yobol}}
*{{userlinks|username4}} *{{userlinks|Guy Macon}}
*{{userlinks|IRWolfie}}
*{{userlinks|AndyTheGrump}}
*{{userlinks|Yannick}}
*{{userlinks|Blue Rasberry}}
*{{userlinks|Avanu}}
<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. --> <!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->


Line 21: Line 26:
;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration --> <!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->
#.
*Link 1
#.
*Link 2
#.
⚫ === Statement by {Party 1} ===
#.
#.
# .
# ().
#.
#The discussions that the references of Nenpog's statement links to.


⚫ === Statement by Nenpog ===
About a month ago, two editors disputed my contributions.<ref></ref> These editors were tendentious, biased, and at least one of them<ref></ref> work in a field related to the article, and thus has a COI. I have opened a DRN case in hopes to resolve the dispute, only to find that the volunteer at the DRN also work in a field related to the article,<ref></ref><ref></ref> and thus have a COI as well, and was biased.<ref>Guy Macon instead of mediating took the side of the opponent, DocJames, who didn't even bother showing up at the discussion. During discussion Guy has wrongly accused Nenpog of being ], and repeated that accusation at the , despite Nenpog's refutation of that accusation.</ref> Subsequent to a request that COIs related to the people in a subsequent DRN discussion or to their benefactors would be disclosed, that volunteer has erupted, with a refusal to disclose, advised others not to disclose, which is against ] guideline,<ref></ref> and started to wikihound me and to followed my posts with post of his own containing false accusations, that I was tendentious, and that I was forum shopping.<ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref> Subsequent to these false accusations, an other editor has opened a case at the AN/I against me.<ref></ref> At the AN/I discussion and decision, not a single quote from my contribution was presented as evidence that the allegation against me are true. Instead the discussion was about the appropriate punishment against me, with the underlying assumption, that all the allegations against me were true. That discussion followed the guilty until proven innocent assumption. The administrator who presided over the AN/I case made a decision to topic ban me due to the consensus with regard to my punishment at the AN/I discussion, while no discussion regarding my guilt or innocence has ever took place. Subsequent to the decision I have requested the deciding administrator to provide such evidence quotes, however he was not able to do so, and none of the other supporters of the ban decision were able to provide such a quote either.<ref></ref> This include supporters who were well versed in the complaint against me such as the DRN volunteer who orchestrated the assault, the editor who filed the complained against me at the AN/I, and a friend of that DRN volunteer all of which have commented at my or the administrator's talk page<ref></ref> in this regard. I believe that the reason for which no evidence quotes were presented, is that there weren't any, because I was just a new editor, trying to figure out how things work in Misplaced Pages, and asking relevant questions in appropriate locations.

Further evidences regarding the bias of the two editors include, but are not limited to, formatting decisions which reduce the odds that the matter they oppose would be noticed, such as shoving an opposed section to the end of the article,<ref></ref> and shoving a section's content inside an other section where that information is less likely to be noticed<ref></ref><ref></ref>; and opposing mainstream science content with arguments of undue weight<ref> Search weight in this section, and search weight in ref#1 in Yobol edit summaries.</ref>; and opposing all primary sources under the pretense that their use is against the ], when in fact such sources can be used if sufficiently new, and their lower weight is disclosed<ref> Also, search ref #1 for the keyword primary in Doc James edit summaries.</ref>; and deleting links from the see also section<ref></ref>; and opposing numeric values from an already accepted source.<ref> e.g. see , </ref>

I ask (1) that the topic ban against me would be canceled, and (2) that appropriate steps would be taken against the orchestrator of the attack on my account, and (3) that appropriate steps would be taken against the biased and COIed editors.


<references/>
=== Statement by {Party 2} === === Statement by {Party 2} ===


Revision as of 15:24, 18 July 2012

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
<Insert the case name>   18 July 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: Armenia-Azerbaijan_3 none (orig. case) 4 January 2025
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 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.

<Insert the case name>-Requests_for_arbitration-2012-07-18T15:06:00.000Z">

Initiated by Nenpog (talk) at 15:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)"> ">

Involved parties">

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Diff. 1
  • Diff. 2
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  1. DRN case #1 Nenpog vs. DocJames mediated by Guy Macon about sources.
  2. WQA case#1 Nenpog vs DocJames on DocJames conduct.
  3. Talk:X-ray_computed_tomography discussion sections 5 to 19.
  4. DRN case #2 Nenpog vs. DocJames and Yobol, Guy Macon also joined discussion about ICRP draft source, statement source, and use thereof.
  5. COIN case, Nenpog request editors to disclose COIs related to CTs.
  6. WQA case#2 - Nenpog vs. Guy Macon on wikihounding .
  7. Continuation of WQA discussion at Avanu talk page, subsequent to closure of discussion by IRWolfie- who seems to be a friend of Guy Macon (see kitten gift).
  8. Nenpog case at the AN/I.
  9. The discussions that the references of Nenpog's statement links to.

Statement by Nenpog">

About a month ago, two editors disputed my contributions. These editors were tendentious, biased, and at least one of them work in a field related to the article, and thus has a COI. I have opened a DRN case in hopes to resolve the dispute, only to find that the volunteer at the DRN also work in a field related to the article, and thus have a COI as well, and was biased. Subsequent to a request that COIs related to the people in a subsequent DRN discussion or to their benefactors would be disclosed, that volunteer has erupted, with a refusal to disclose, advised others not to disclose, which is against WP:COI guideline, and started to wikihound me and to followed my posts with post of his own containing false accusations, that I was tendentious, and that I was forum shopping. Subsequent to these false accusations, an other editor has opened a case at the AN/I against me. At the AN/I discussion and decision, not a single quote from my contribution was presented as evidence that the allegation against me are true. Instead the discussion was about the appropriate punishment against me, with the underlying assumption, that all the allegations against me were true. That discussion followed the guilty until proven innocent assumption. The administrator who presided over the AN/I case made a decision to topic ban me due to the consensus with regard to my punishment at the AN/I discussion, while no discussion regarding my guilt or innocence has ever took place. Subsequent to the decision I have requested the deciding administrator to provide such evidence quotes, however he was not able to do so, and none of the other supporters of the ban decision were able to provide such a quote either. This include supporters who were well versed in the complaint against me such as the DRN volunteer who orchestrated the assault, the editor who filed the complained against me at the AN/I, and a friend of that DRN volunteer all of which have commented at my or the administrator's talk page in this regard. I believe that the reason for which no evidence quotes were presented, is that there weren't any, because I was just a new editor, trying to figure out how things work in Misplaced Pages, and asking relevant questions in appropriate locations.

Further evidences regarding the bias of the two editors include, but are not limited to, formatting decisions which reduce the odds that the matter they oppose would be noticed, such as shoving an opposed section to the end of the article, and shoving a section's content inside an other section where that information is less likely to be noticed; and opposing mainstream science content with arguments of undue weight; and opposing all primary sources under the pretense that their use is against the WP:MEDRS, when in fact such sources can be used if sufficiently new, and their lower weight is disclosed; and deleting links from the see also section; and opposing numeric values from an already accepted source.

I ask (1) that the topic ban against me would be canceled, and (2) that appropriate steps would be taken against the orchestrator of the attack on my account, and (3) that appropriate steps would be taken against the biased and COIed editors.


  1. History since the beginning of the dispute. Note Doc James, and Yobol edits, on one side of the dispute, and IPs editor, that later became Nenpog on the other side of the dispute.
  2. DocJames work as an ER doctor, and thus he and his employer rely on CTs for work, send patients to be scanned, and are affected by information questioning their past or future clinical decisions in the matter. Despite statement regarding socialized medicine, AFAIK the only difference between the systems is the source for the funds being the tax vs. private, where in both systems each medical procedure is financially compensated.
  3. Guy Macon stated "I am an engineer with experience with other kinds of medical diagnostic equipment"
  4. Guy Macon stated "I can easily answer these questions from my own expertise designing equipment for producing radiation cross-linked ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene"
  5. Guy Macon instead of mediating DRN case #1 took the side of the opponent, DocJames, who didn't even bother showing up at the discussion. During discussion Guy has wrongly accused Nenpog of being straw man, and repeated that accusation at the WQA case#1, despite Nenpog's refutation of that accusation.
  6. Guy Macon stated in reply to my request to disclose COIs: "No. You don't get to ask that and I advise others to not answer it."
  7. Guy Macon accuse that Nenpog is forum shopping and tendentious at the MEDRS talk page
  8. Guy Macon accuse that Nenpog is forum shopping and tendentious at the NOR talk page
  9. Guy Macon accuse that Nenpog is forum shopping and tendentious at the NPOV talk page
  10. Guy Macon accuse that Nenpog is forum shopping and tendentious at the COIN talk page
  11. Guy Macon accuse Nenpog of being ineducable and disruptive at the CT talk page
  12. Guy Macon accuse Nenpog of edit warring at Nenpog talk page
  13. Guy Macon accuse that Nenpog is forum shopping and tendentious at the CT talk page
  14. Guy Macon accuse that Nenpog is forum shopping and tendentious at Jimbo Wales talk page
  15. Nenpog case at the AN/I
  16. Nenpog request quotes of his statements to be provided, in order to show him the reason for the AN/I decision, however none are provided.
  17. IRWolfie try to help MastCell to find evidence against Nenpog, by presenting a statistical analysis of Nenpog contributions. However, this show that IRWolfie could not find a quote of Nenpog as evidence.
  18. CT article version after Yobol pushed the adverse effects and the scan dose sections to the bottom of the article.
  19. DocJames move the hair loss side effect from the adverse effects section to the bottom of the scan dose section under a subtitle excess dose, which doesn't convey a side effect.
  20. A version with adverse effects subtitles of 'Extensive DNA damage', 'Hair loss', 'Cognitive decline', 'Immediate Death', 'Pseudo-allergic reactions', 'Kidney damage', 'Thyroid pathology', and Cancer adverse effects, where in current version DocJames aggregated 'Immediate Death', 'Pseudo-allergic reactions', 'Kidney damage', under the non informative name "Contrast", and aggregated Cancer and a small part of the DNA damage under the name Cancer, and moved Hair loss to a non side effects section named Scan dose, and deleted the rest.
  21. Yobol refuse to accept mainstream science with undue weight arguments. Search weight in this section, see example diff and search weight in ref#1 in Yobol edit summaries.
  22. Doc James stated "If you insist on using primary sources there is really nothing more to discuss." Also, search ref #1 for the keyword primary in Doc James edit summaries.
  23. Yobol removes links from the see also section.
  24. Yobol and DocJames opposed stating the absorbed dose numbers (in mGy) as stated at the same source from which the effective dose numbers (in mSv) were taken. e.g. see diff1, diff2

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 (0/0/0/0)">