| Revision as of 09:20, 13 April 2015 view sourceAbecedare (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators33,231 editsm →Statement by Abecedare: gr← 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 editors42,350 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}} | |||
| <noinclude>{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{-}} | |||
| </noinclude> | |||
| =<includeonly>]</includeonly>= | |||
| <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=53%</noinclude>}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}} | |||
| <noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude> | |||
| <!-- PLEASE PLACE NEW CASE REQUESTS BELOW THIS LINE --> | |||
| == QuackGuru == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 12:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{userlinks|Levelledout}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{userlinks|QuackGuru}} | |||
| ;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. --> | |||
| * | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| Two most recent ANIs (many more ): | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| === Statement by Levelledout === | |||
| QuackGuru has a and an even longer at ANI. I don't know his full history of ArbCom cases but he has been sanctioned and banned at least twice previously . | |||
| I can only speak of my personal experiences with him at the ] article where he has become incredibly disruptive of late. Considering the 500 word limit I provide a summary of his actions since his last ANI section was closed in March 2015: | |||
| * Abuse of the page (un)protection process and thus ]. Also forcing through large-scale changes without consensus and edit-warring, thus violating ] and ]. Sequence of events as follows: | |||
| *# getting page protection removed, no notification of discussion on article talk page. | |||
| *#Immediately dumping (9k) amounts of material into article, no notification/discussion on article talk page. | |||
| *#After article was consequently reprotected, immediately running to requests for page protection without notifying article talk page and getting expiry date reduced. | |||
| *# article in sandbox for next ten days until protection expired again, no notification or discussion to article talk page. | |||
| *# vast (17k) sandbox edits into article as soon as protection expired again, no prior discussion, in direct violation of instructions . | |||
| *#Edit-warring the changes after they were reverted. | |||
| * Removing a POV tag 5 times within a few days thus edit-warring - . On at least two occasions (/ and /) doing so purely due to a personal fued, thus disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a ]. | |||
| * Breaching ], likely in order to try and prove a ] in a personal feud with the of the following into the article, sourced from an editorial: | |||
| <blockquote>"They (e-cigarette users) also undertake in uncivil online attacks on any person who implies that e-cigarettes are not an innovation, with at least one person associated to an organization that receives donations from the ]."</blockquote> | |||
| * ] issues regarding language and grammar, error-ridden edits (see above) and failing to understand the concepts of ] and paraphrasing - | |||
| * ], often to the extreme, stating one objection, then when that is shown to be redundant, coming up with a different one, then when all else fails simply telling all other editors that their objections are invalid and inadmissible - also | |||
| * Personal attacks and incivility . | |||
| QuackGuru obviously has a good deal of adversaries but some editors support him, some of whom are well respected and/or admins. ANI has proved ineffective in dealing with him and no firm action has been taken against him for any of the above by admins, even in consideration that there are in place on electronic cigarette articles. Therefore I think that this is the right place to raise this matter. | |||
| :@ ] The SPA accusation is brought up against practically everybody that opposes QuackGuru, whether they actually are an SPA or not. In my case, I'm still a relatively new editor with relatively few edits. I have a relatively high number of edits to the main e-cig article talk page but the large majority of my main wiki editing is not on e-cig related articles . Overall so far most of my edits have gone on e-cigs because it's a topic that interests me and because there have been long protracted debates on the talk page. But I do not advocate for e-cigarettes, I recognise that there are both potential risks and benefits in line with the majority of sources. I also try to implement the NPOV that QuackGuru is intent on preventing. QuackGuru edits mainly what he would consider pseudo-science topics, does that make him an SPA? Your claim that QuackGuru is not the real problem and that he is causing less disruption than other editors is categorically wrong. Take a look at and and you will realise nobody is adding more material than QuackGuru and no active editor (Fergus M1970 is blocked and AlbinoFerret is on a voluntary ban) is contributing more to the talk page. Combined with the fact that QuackGuru violates many important policies and guidelines as demonstrated above, this means that QuackGuru is the most disruptive editor on the whole article at the moment. I do not believe that FergusM1970 was shown to be a paid e-cig advocate, although I could be wrong I think he was shown to be paid to be editing the ] article. In any case, you seem to be arbitrarily accusing me of being a paid advocate simply because one other editor was at some point in the past, even though you have no evidence to suggest that I am.] (]) 13:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :@ ] It is difficult to respond to a re-assertion that I am an SPA except for to re-assert that I am a relatively new editor and am here to improve the encyclopedia. I am not sure why you have provided a link to an old copy of my sandbox but it was a result of on the talk page. I later decided to abandon the copy-edit since there was no point in attempting it all the time that QuackGuru was editing the article.] (]) 14:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :@] Since this is the only place I have raised the issue then by definition it is not forum shopping. There are several reasons I believe that ArbCom is the appropriate place: | |||
| # QuackGuru's conduct issues are multiple, serious, protracted and therefore somewhat complex. | |||
| # A substantial amount of the diffs presented are {{tq|dated before discretionary sanctions were enforced and therefore would not be actionable under discretionary sanctions}}. | |||
| # A substantial amount of the diffs presented are also dated after discretionary sanctioned were enforced, i.e. most of the POV tag removals and competence diffs, all of the filibustering diffs. The diffs show that QuackGuru's conduct has not improved since April 1st but despite admins patrolling pages no action has been forthcoming under discretionary sanctions. | |||
| # QuackGuru has at least some amount of admin support | |||
| # The allegations presented are serious and discretionary sanctions only allows for blocks of up to one year for instance. | |||
| # QuackGuru has a long history of ANI cases as recent as March 2015, blocks and bans, ArbCom sanctions clearly demonstrating that the community has struggled to deal with his conduct previously.] (]) 15:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :@] I'm not sure why QuackGuru states that it wasn't entirely accurate to suggest that he dumped 17k of information into the article with edit. The revision history clearly shows +17,183 bytes of data. He remarks that I received a final warning. I have in fact received two warnings. The was for reverting QuackGuru's 9k of edits referenced above on the basis of ]. This was in fact the first wholesale revert I have ever made on Misplaced Pages. It certainly was not edit-warring since it was only one revert and I'm still slightly at a miss as to what I did wrong. The admin that made the warning appeared to concede that I was not edit-warring and that the warning was for informational purposes to prevent the situation descending into an edit-war. The warning was for again reverting QuackGuru on his 17k of edits two weeks later. Once again I only reverted the once. I assumed that since I was not edit-warring the first time round and that QuackGuru was in direct violation of instructions received by an admin and also ], that reverting would be OK and the right thing to do. In all honesty it feels like I have received two warnings simply for trying to implement ] and to stop QuackGuru from forcing through large-scale changes without consensus.] (]) 17:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :@] Can I please again emphasise that most of the diffs, including a lot of the most serious stuff, relate to activity which took place '''before''' discretionary sanctions were imposed. Therefore as I understand it I am not able to request action under discretionary sanctions for most of the above activity.] (]) 18:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :@] Note that one user (me) receives a warning for a single revert (by definition not edit-warring) and then a final warning for a second revert (quite possibly not edit-warring either) two weeks later whilst for instance QuackGuru gets nothing for removing a POV tag from the article 5 times, forcing through large-scale changes without consensus multiple times and in fact practically everything that I have listed above aside from one polite notice for edit-warring his 17k of changes back into the article. You call the request "frivolous" because you don't admit that action should already have been taken against QuackGuru and hasn't been.] (]) 21:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Furthermore ] was warned for simply making two reverts by Bishonen and ] was warned by Bishonen for simply inserting the wrong type of article tag.] (]) 00:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by QuackGuru === | |||
| I did explain . I spotted original research in the article and I did rewrite the text closer to the source. I cited the sources that confirmed the wording was original research or at least a bit misleading. I also made follow up edits that improved the wording to my original significant changes. ] has been given a . I added numerous high-quality sources, including MEDRS compliant reviews. Levelledout says I added about 17k. That's not entirely accurate . I added more information recently. The page was 90,260 bytes. Now it is . I started a new discussion on the talk page for the 3 tags. See ]. More later if this case is accepted. ] (]) 16:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| User:S Marshall wants to significantly shorten the lede and delete a lot of text from the page. I disgreed. This was by S Marshall. This previous edit by S Marshall was to the lede. Now that his edits did not gain consensus he with 3 tags. Now it appears that S Marshall wants me ]. ] (]) 18:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Statement by Softlavender (uninvolved party)=== | |||
| Hi, I've never edited any of the various e-cig articles, but I have observed the obvious pattern of ] editors who advocate for e-cigs and/or the e-cig industry, of which {{noping|Levelledout}} is one, and of which , and of which . Although he has his own problematical behaviors, the real problem on the e-cig articles isn't QuackGuru, but rather the e-cig SPA advocates. And if one has been proven to be paid, how can we not suspect that the others are or may be as well? (Smoke/fire, and all that.) QuackGuru is a convenient target for the SPAs, and a convenient smokescreen to haul into ANI while masking the real issues at hand. It would also be very convenient for the e-cig SPAs to get rid of QuackGuru or topic ban him, because then they would have much more free reign to outnumber the non-SPAs, and to re-write the articles in the industry's favor. The sorry fact of the matter is, the issue that should be an ArbCom request is the obvious (and possibly paid) ] advocacy across all of the e-cig articles, not QuackGuru. ] (]) 13:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| @Levelledout: No, we don't call people editing the e-cig articles SPAs unless they are SPAs, and it takes no time at all to scroll through your contributions history and to determine you are an e-cig SPA. Other than to mention the fact that there are other e-cig SPAs besides you and the two whom I've mentioned above, I've said what I wanted to say and have no interest in any further back and forth or discussion here. ] (]) 14:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Zad68 === | |||
| Compared to many at that article, I'm relatively lightly involved, holding the position for Talk-page commenters by edit count but in the top 20 by article edits. | |||
| This request is premature and the specific complaint against QG should be rejected because were <u>just</u> authorized 11 days ago pursuant to a request at ANI, and the article has <u>just</u> picked up active monitoring from an uninvolved admin {{u|Bishonen}}. Bish has made warnings to other editors in the topic area, but not QG. has yet been made regarding the topic area. Why not let the community-authorized DS have a chance to work first? <s>A case can be made that this request is a bit of forum-shopping.</s> ''Struck as explained below'' <code>]]</code> 14:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *], according to the General Sanctions log, the ANI thread resulted in the community authorization of discretionary sanctions, and ] is indeed an appropriate place for editors to ask admins to review behavior and see if a discretionary sanction is warranted. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but according to my reading at both ] and the instructions at ] that's how it's set up to work.) <code>]]</code> 18:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{u|Levelledout}} the reason why I said "forum-shopping" is because in ANI discussion you did not support community sanctions, and you supported an indef block of QG or a full ArbCom case. Because you didn't get the outcome you desired there, trying now to get a full ArbCom case before we've had a chance to see if DS will work seems like forum-shopping. But perhaps you just weren't aware of how this process is supposed to work. Either way, I can see that comment of mine is a distraction so I'll strike. <code>]]</code> 19:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *OK ], shoot, but I'll stop spreading that rumor. Without at least some period of having uninvolved admins visibly roaming the halls and handing out pink slips as needed I'm afraid we are indeed going to end up right back here within a matter of weeks. <code>]]</code> 23:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Mr. Stradivarius === | |||
| I closed the ] authorising the community sanctions on April 1. (And no, that wasn't an April Fool's joke.) I think 11 days is a little too soon to say whether the sanctions have worked or not. — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 15:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * {{ping|Bishonen}} I have the e-cig pages on my watchlist, but I haven't really been actively monitoring them. Call it "watching from a distance". — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 04:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by S Marshall === | |||
| We'll end up here, but QG hasn't had enough rope yet.—] <small>]/]</small> 17:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Beyond My Ken === | |||
| Since the community imposed discretionary sanctions on the E-cigarette subject area, shouldn't any complaints about abuse there go either to AN/I or to the complainant's admin of choice, in order to have those sanctions enforced? Coming directly to ArbCom, especially when a case request has been turned down very recently, appears like an attempt to bypass community sanctions without giving them a chance to work. I suggest that the committee refuse this case request and refer the issue to AN/I. ] (]) 18:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Zad68}} I could well be wrong, but I don't believe that community sanctions are enforced at AE, since the remit there is to enforce decisions of the Arbitration Committee. Normal community processes via an admin or AN/I should be utilized. ] (]) 18:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::@DGG: You write that the community sanctions have not been very successful in the (mere) 11 days since they were instituted, but, in fact, admins have been putting their attention to this subject area for a much more limited time than that. In addition, there has been no evidence presented in this case request that there has been misbehavior in the subject area significantly before admins began to deal with it, I suggest that ArbCom, as the "court of last resort", should actually '''''wait''''' until it is, in fact, the last resort before it gets involved. Your acceptance of the case appears to me to be untimely and usurping of the community's realm of authority. ArbCom should only take cases when it has been shown definitively that the community cannot deal with the problem, which is hardly the situation here. I urge you to reverse your opinion. ] (]) 06:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comment by Bishonen=== | |||
| This is a pretty frivolous arbitration request in my opinion. I think the community general sanctions can work. It's true I've so far only given one e-cig warning specifically related to the sanctions. But it may be worth mentioning that both I and Mr Stradivarius gave the OP here final warnings for disruptive editing on ] only hours before the sanctions came into effect; the difference between those and "sanctions" warnings is pretty technical. That said, ]'s kind mention makes my "monitoring" sound more magnificent than it is, as I don't have very much Misplaced Pages time and sometimes prefer the less prickly jobs, where users don't explode as soon as addressed. However, I'm assuming ] is watching too; aren't you, Mr S? ] | ] 20:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC). | |||
| === Statement by A1candidate === | |||
| This Committee needs to understand that the heart of this dispute revolves around several complicated issues including: | |||
| * QuackGuru's ownership of medical articles | |||
| * QuackGuru's accusations against other editors | |||
| * Disagreement among administrators on how to deal with QuackGuru | |||
| Some administrators are convinced that QuackGuru fights ] and is a net asset to the encyclopedia, while others are aware of the amount of disruption he causes but are unwilling to take action because they view Misplaced Pages as a battleground between COI-vested advocates and a group of well-established and trusted editors to which they (and QuackGuru) belong. At this point in time, I do find it appropriate to highlight the indisputable battleground nature of this conflict that is well-documented in previous ArbCom filings and exemplified by a specific comment posted by this particular administrator: | |||
| :"Second, it ''is'' a battleground. A battle against ] in the real world, with prosecutions and a litany of exploitation of cancer victims by unscrupulous quacks, a battle on Misplaced Pages to hold back the ] whose motivation and determination to use Misplaced Pages to promote their beliefs is generally far stronger than the determination of any individual Misplaced Pages to ensure that we remain dependable ont hese subjects" | |||
| :'''- Administrator ], ''' | |||
| Whether Misplaced Pages is a battleground or not isn't the main issue here, I'm simply pointing out the fact that some administrators do in fact view this place as a ''real-world battleground''. Other administrators such as {{U|Kww}} have also openly acknowledged their sympathetic views towards QuackGuru's cause . This partly explains why previous attempt at dispute resolution have failed and it also indicates that future attempts at dispute resolution are likely to fail, unless these administrators change their behavior. | |||
| I opposed a proposal to bring this issue to ArbCom initially, because I believed (and trusted) in the community's ability to resolve it. I probably should say that I was completely wrong. Those defending QuackGuru (both here and elsewhere) must first answer the following question before this dispute has any chance of being resolved: Has QuackGuru's editing improved after a decade of repeated blocks and warnings? As Administrator EdJohnston noticed many years ago: "". That was back in 2011, so has anything changed four years later? | |||
| According to administrator John, one of the few editors who stood up against QuackGuru's disruptive editing and repugnant behavior: | |||
| :"''If the community lacks the cojones to sanction QG, who is the main culprit, and is content to let him off with a weak "warning" (how many warnings is that now?) it is against natural justice to sanction AF. I tend to agree with the view that arbitration will be the way forward here.''" | |||
| :'''- Administrator ], | |||
| The wisdom of John's statement is evidenced by the fact that QuackGuru continued to escalate the situation right after receiving his warning, first by making baseless accusations against other editors and then by bringing the entire issue to the Committee's attention after his attempt to ban KimDabelsteinPetersen was . John recently blocked QuackGuru for disruptive editing (see ), so did QuackGuru accept his fault and improve his behavior? Did he take notice of John's advice to ? The answer is ''no'', because if QuackGuru had heeded John's advice, the issue would have been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties. -] 20:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Kww === | |||
| I think it is becoming time that we need to revisit the fundamental ''purpose'' of discretionary sanctions. In some cases (Palestine, the interminable dispute over Cyprus, the Ukraine, and other political issues come readily to mind) the purpose of the sanctions is to make the editors involved behave. In other cases (pseudoscience and alternative medicine articles, for example) the purpose of the sanctions is to ensure that the content of the article reflects our purpose as an encyclopedia. | |||
| The e-cigarette disputes seem to fall more towards the latter: the problems here are based on a long-term and contentious fight against industry forces that would paint e-cigarette use as a harmless hobby. That fight is being badly handled by an editor that isn't known for his subtlety and dispute resolution skills. I'd have no problem topic-restricting QG in this and similar battles if the topic-restriction was accompanied by revamping the sanctions to ensure that editors striving for accurate presentation had an intrinsic advantage over people shilling for industry interests and charlatans.—](]) 22:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Btw, ], I believe my answer is directed towards your question.—](]) 22:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Les Vegas === | |||
| What a coincidence, this is too funny! I came to the Arbcom committee to file a request against QuackGuru on the Acupuncture article (after his latest round of IDHT'ing on the talk page), and noticed that Levelledout stole my thunder! Is there a possibility of joint-filing this request asking for a site ban? Afterall, I'm prepared to make a lengthy argument that QuackGuru's behavior on Acupuncture is as equally reprehensible as it is on E-Cigarette. The difference, however, is that the Acupuncture article has been under sanctions for some time. So, all that is to say, I don't expect QuackGuru's behavior to change on E-Cigarette (or anywhere else on Misplaced Pages for that matter) anytime soon. He is, by far, the worst, most lawless Wikipedian I have ever seen. ] (]) 02:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by ] === | |||
| I will mostly stay out of this one as I've made it clear elsewhere I've run out of Good Faith for QuackGuru and he winds me up to the point where I make bad edits and bad judgement calls. I only wanted to respond to Softlavender's and Kww's assertions that the problem at the page is advocates for e-cigs trying to hide information. It belies a lack of understanding of the page to say that. Yes there are advocates, and they and their edits are generally dealt with. However the majority of the advocacy, as seen on the talk page and in edits, is for structure to make the information presented more readable and deliver the same information more informatively. Most of the content removals and removal requests are to remove duplications. | |||
| As for the fact that there are SPA concerns. I don't know about others but I've noticed in the past that Battlegrounds tend to become a point of focus for editors with skin in the game. I've seen before with myself and other editors that the one fight going on, where you feel your editing could make a significant difference, gets most of your wiki-effort and edits there start to drain your wiki-effort overall. | |||
| Quack is a disruptive editor. He's had several warnings about the way he edits and blocks for the way he edits. I wouldn't personally want to see him gone entirely, he does have an eye for finding sources he just doesn't have the competence to translate sources into readable prose and he doesn't have the competence or wikiquette to discuss changes to help achieve consensus. A ban from editing the e-cigarette articles broadly construed (excluding removal of blatant copyright and obvious vandalism) would help the article massively. Even a 3-6month one would allow people to get the article into a reasonable state from which Quack would likely be able to add new information easier as he does seem to be better in good articles than one's he's creating whole cloth. --] (]) 08:41, 13 April 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).'' | |||
| * | |||
| === QuackGuru: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/3/0/2> === | |||
| {{anchor|1=QuackGuru: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small> | |||
| *Awaiting more statements, but my initial thoughts are that something needs to change regarding the e-cigarettes topic area, and if the community sanctions aren't working then it's probably up to us to usher that in - but I want more opinions about whether they truly have failed, and if so what might work? {{replyto|softlavender}} (and anyone else) whether someone is being paid is irrelevant to resolving this dispute - either they are editing in a manner that is improving the article(s) (directly, or indirectly) or they are not, and it is possible for someone who is being paid to edit to fall into either of those groups. Please also bear in mind ] and ] when making allegations against editors. ] (]) 14:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *At the moment inclined to decline. I think it's too early to say that community sanctions aren't working. ] (]) 15:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Decline''' I really want to give community sanctions more time. ] (]) 18:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Awaiting statements. I would be particularly interested to hear why the community sanctions are not believed to have worked given how recently they were imposed, and would be inclined to give more time to see if that settles things down there. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' The GS were put in place 11 days ago. I don't see why we can't wait until mid-May to see if they work. --] | ] 01:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Accept''' this will be here sooner or later, and Community sanctions have not been very successful with this sort of problem--just as Kww points out above. We can have further disruption and then step in, or we can step in now and do what can be done to short-circuit the further disruption . The attitude of letting things become worse so the need for sanctions will become even clearer, is detrimental in the meanwhile to everyone who works in good faith with good manners in the area. ''']''' (]) 05:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' at this point, with no prejudice against accepting a future case if it becomes clear after a suitable length of time that the DS are not working. ] ]] 07:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Content on ] == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 04:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{userlinks|Mifciw}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{userlinks|Ugog_Nizdast}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Abecedare}} | |||
| ;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. --> | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| * Link 1 | |||
| * Link 2 | |||
| === Statement by Mifciw === | |||
| I want to know why editors i have mentioned are continuously removing content on ]. Please check its history so you can see ''History and Background'' ''Framework'' ''Recitation'' sections have been removed. I asked them to be bold and search for link instead they are removing content of these sections. Please see through history i provided links too to state newsapers which they accuse me that i am publisher of them. Now Please bring an end to their fire and add those sections whom i added. I hope you will bring them on space soon. See the links i provided to cite the content. http://kashmirobserver.net/news/opinion/history-jaloos-e-ashura-srinagar | |||
| === Statement by Ugog Nizdast === | |||
| This isn't needed. I'm sure Abecedare and anybody else involved are fine with any form of dialogue with Mifciw regarding the article. Our discussion is on ] and the only reply we got with Mifciw is . -] (]) 08:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Abecedare === | |||
| I assume the case will be declined on procedural grounds, but for any arbiters or page-watchers wishing to do due-diligence (or, plain curious): | |||
| * I rewrote the article Saturday, from to (at that point the article was named ]) | |||
| * the reasons for the rewrite were ] | |||
| Any suggestions for further improvements, and more eyes, are of course welcome. ] (]) 09:11, 13 April 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).'' | |||
| * | |||
| === Content on ]: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/2/0/0> === | |||
| {{anchor|1=editors are continuously removing content on ]: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small> | |||
| *{{ping|Mifciw}} Abitration is the ultimate and final stage of ]; what previous DR processes have you engaged with regarding this issue? I can't see any evidence that you have taken this to any noticeboard or attempted to arrange ]. Where have you used community policies to address this? ] ]] 08:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **In fact, I don't even need an answer to that; it's very clear that you have not exhausted - or even attempted - the initial stages of dispute resolution. It also looks as though this is a content dispute, rather than a behavioural one, which is not within the purview of ArbCom. '''Decline'''. ] ]] 08:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline''' per Yunshui - dispute resolution not exhausted and fundamentally a content dispute. You are being reverted by several fellow editors, please seek consensus for your proposed additions in the article talkpage rather than edit warring in the article itself. -- ] (]) 08:55, 13 April 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 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 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, 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 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
|
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.