Revision as of 03:58, 16 March 2015 view sourceQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →Statement by User:QuackGuru: thoughts← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024 view source MJL (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors42,349 edits →Sabotage of Lindy Li's page: removing case as premature: declinedTag: Manual revert | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:ARC|a guide on talk page archiving|H:ARC}} | |||
{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{-}} | |||
</noinclude> | |||
<includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for arbitration}}}}</noinclude> | |||
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}} | |||
{{NOINDEX}} | |||
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width= |
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}} | ||
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude> | |||
<!-- PLEASE PLACE NEW CASE REQUESTS BELOW THIS LINE --> | |||
== Battleground on e-cig articles == | |||
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) 19:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
=== Involved parties === | |||
<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator --> | |||
*{{userlinks|QuackGuru}} ''filing party'' | |||
*{{userlinks|KimDabelsteinPetersen}} | |||
*{{userlinks|S Marshall}} | |||
*{{userlinks|AlbinoFerret}} | |||
*{{userlinks|Doc James}} | |||
;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
* | |||
* | |||
=== Statement by ] === | |||
;KimDabelsteinPetersen | |||
:Some of the e-cig enthusiasts are ] to improve the e-cig pages. See ] and see ] for previous ANI discussions. | |||
:. That's because ] has also made many controversial edits to the ] page. Let's review some of KimDabelsteinPetersen's recent edits. | |||
: This edit deleted text and sources from two reputable organisations. See ]. The sources are reliable per ]. See ]. The sources are reliable per ] according to the current discussion. | |||
: This edit deleted text and sources from two reputable organisations again. | |||
: This edit mainly deleted text from a written in '']'', a ] ]. The impact factor for the journal is . | |||
: This edit mainly deleted text from a review and text from reputable organizations. | |||
: This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against ] and ]. | |||
: This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against ] and ] '''again'''. | |||
: This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against ] and ] '''again'''. | |||
: This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against ] and ] '''again'''. KimDabelsteinPetersen . | |||
:KimDabelsteinPetersen, aren't you also deleting a lot of sources against ]? shows AlbinoFerret is making many counterproductive edits and deleting of a lot of reliable sources. See ]. KimDabelsteinPetersen is also deleting a lot of reliable sources which suggests he/she is promoting a certain favorable ] for e-cigs. Should KimDabelsteinPetersen be topic banned? KimDabelsteinPetersen has earned a topic ban from the e-cig pages IMO. Does the community prefer a topic ban for KimDabelsteinPetersen for '''6 months or one year''', an '''indef topic ban''', or '''just a warning''' or '''no action'''? | |||
:KimDabelsteinPetersen thought it was okay to delete so many sources over and over again. But it is not reasonable to continue to delete pertinent information about of the safety of e-cigarettes. Both and are the main problem editors IMO. No reasonable argument has been made to delete so many reliable sources including deleting reviews such as (PMID 24732159) and (PMID 24732160) and (PMID 25572196) after over '''two weeks'''. Please review the current discussion on the . See ]. I think I bring a sharp editors pencil to many controversial places where most editors prefer to stay away from. That said I hope editors will try to follow ] a bit more rather than making blanket reverts to an older version. Often, reliable sources and pertinent text sourced to reliable sources are being reremoved over and over again with non-argument discussions on the talk page. What could possibly be a logical reason to '''delete''' so many sources? There is currently no open thread at AN/I for a proposed topic ban for KimDabelsteinPetersen. The community is '''not''' handling this specific editor at this time at AN/I. ] (]) 19:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
;AlbinoFerret | |||
:User:AlbinoFerret is making a lot of comments and edits to e-cig related pages. See https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions/AlbinoFerret&offset=&limit=500&target=AlbinoFerret See ] for previous behaviour issues. AlbinoFerret tried to that uses a reliable MEDRS compliant source to verify the claims. He eventually tried to delete some of the text. AlbinoFerret deleted sources from reputable organisations. | |||
:User:AlbinoFerret also deleted a source from a . After User:AlbinoFerret could not delete the reliable source he then added context that was inappropriate. See ]. | |||
:Both User:AlbinoFerret and User:KimDabelsteinPetersen appeared to be against using the formal policy statement written in a peer-reviewed journal for medical claims. | |||
:See ]. | |||
: This change deleted numerous sources. | |||
: This change deleted numerous sources '''again'''. | |||
:AlbinoFerret's last major edit was , which deleted numerous sources, including deleting reviews against MEDRS '''again'''. | |||
:AlbinoFerret claims "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion." But AlbinoFerret has not given a specific reason to exclude relevant information about safety. ] is not the issue IMO. AlbinoFerret has turned the e-cig pages into a ]. See ]. The sources are reliable per ]. See ]. Please also review the current discussion on the . See ]. I think an '''indef topic ban''' is better solution rather than a '''short-term topic ban'''. It is clear that AlbinoFerret is ] to improve the e-cig pages. It appears AlbinoFerret wants to have lengthy discussions on the talk page in an effort to prevent the article from moving forward. The community discussions to resolve these matters have not gone anywhere. This should not go to AN/I again and again. The repeated trips to AN/I is a waste of the communities time. Like AN/I, I'm sure things will get ugly soon. The reason there is currently a mess at AN/I is because admins at AN/I did nothing about the previous long term disruption when it was previously reported to ] back in November 2014. The main e-cig page has been fully protected multiple times. The dispute is likely to continue for a long time unless administrative action is taken. ] (]) 21:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
Since no action was taken for a very long time at AN/I and hopefully the discussion can continue here. Note. If I am not allowed to close the thread I started at AN/I feel free to revert or if an uninvolved admin wants to take action feel free to revert and take action at AN/I. The thread at AN/I can still be reclosed by an uninvolved admin. See . Thanks. ] (]) 00:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by ] === | |||
=== Statement by involved ] === | |||
*It's certainly a battleground. I'm finding it utterly impossible to improve the article at present. | |||
*I endorse the request for ArbCom to look at the whole e-cigarette family of articles and the quagmire of problematic behaviour that surrounds it. | |||
*In response to Seraphimblade's request: the community processes are inadequate. They deal with one user at a time, and give a result in clear-cut cases. AlbinoFerret's case, by itself, is something the community can deal with. QuackGuru and KimDabelsteinPetersen is another problem (or two other problems ---- I think QuackGuru's been admirably unselfconscious in starting this, by the way). In the AN/I thread, ] that there are SPAs or near-SPAs involved, and I suspect he's right. ] that interested parties have contacted his university to attack him personally. Taken together this is too much for community processes to cope with.—] <small>]/]</small> 00:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by involved ] === | |||
@] The user in question was indefinitely banned. So the community did deal with it. ] (] · ] · ]) 00:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by ] === | |||
=== Statement by Beyond My Ken === | |||
I am not named as a party here. I am not in any way involved in editing the various e-cig articles, but I have been strongly involved in the AN/I discussion about whether AlbinoFerret should be topic banned for e-cigs, which I favor. My feeling about this request is that, while ArbCom certainly has the right to open a case, it should give the community process a chance to play out. As of this moment, the topic ban for AlbinoFerret and a proposal for community-imposed discretionary sanctions are both outstanding, and these should be allowed to finish before ArbCom takes on a case, should any of the parties feel the need to file a request at that time. For these reasons I would ask the committee to reject the request at this time. ] (]) 23:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I re-opened the AN/I thread about the proposed topic ban for AlbinoFerret, which was closed by QuackGuru. Although he started the thread, it does not in any way belong to him, and as a highly involved party he never should have closed it. The views of the community, in the form of the comments of editors both pro- and con-, deserve to be evaluated by an uninvolved admin, and the thread closed on the basis of that evaluation, not as a tactical move by one of the parties involved, especially one who stands to benefit (in the potential opening of the case requested here) if the thread is closed.<p>I have asked QuarkGuru on his talk page not to close the thread again, and I request that the arbitrators keep on eye on the thread. If QuackGuru closes it again, I believe it would be a disruptive edit, and a sanction should be considered. ] (]) 00:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Although I've been known to comment on case requests before, I'm not entirely certain of proper procedures. Should involved parties be added to the case unilaterally, as was done , or does this require permission of some sort? ] (]) 01:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::@Euryalus - Thank you. ] (]) 03:08, 16 March 2015 (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).'' | |||
=== Battleground on e-cig articles: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/1/0/2> === | |||
*Okay, if QuackGuru, an editor in good standing, is willing to stand as filing party, then '''awaiting statements'''. ] (]) 19:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
*There certainly is a problem here. That being the case, it looks like community discussions to resolve the matter are still ongoing. Statements as to why arbitration is needed over and above that (or why it is not) would be very helpful. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Decline'''. The e-cigs topic area is a mess at the moment, but it is a mess that the community is working on fixing and I see no reason for us to step in while the AN/I is still ongoing. If after the community resolutions (whatever they turn out to be) have had time to take effect there is still a problem then I'd likely be willing to take a case, but for now this is premature. ] (]) 01:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
*{{replyto|Beyond My Ken}} - anyone can propose that another editor is an involved party, though nonsense proposals will be removed. Proposing that someone is an invovled party obligates the proposer to notify them of that fact. Whether they actually ''are'' involved is determined by the Committee if the case is accepted. Of course simply being named as "involved" doesn't imply any particular outcome, it just lets people know they should probably pay attention to the proceedings. Equally, being "uninvolved" doesn't stop editor contributing to the case as it goes along. -- ] (]) 02:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024
"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC. Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open casesCase 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 requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motionsMotion 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.
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
|