Revision as of 06:00, 2 August 2015 view sourceQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →Statement by QuackGuru: cmt← 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}} | |||
{{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> | |||
== Electronic cigarette == | |||
'''Initiated by ''' —] <small>]/]</small> '''at''' 17:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
=== Involved parties === | |||
<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator --> | |||
*{{userlinks|S Marshall}}, ''filing party'' | |||
*{{userlinks|QuackGuru}} | |||
*{{userlinks|CFCF}} | |||
*{{userlinks|SPACKlick}} | |||
;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 | |||
* . | |||
* . | |||
=== Statement by S Marshall === | |||
Going to arbcom over this is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but the other avenues open to me have failed and I can't bring myself to drop it. Which makes me, I accept, part of the problem.<p>The instructions for this page tell me to use diffs and links to convince Arbcom to take the case. I think the two diffs I've already provided are sufficient: , closed on the grounds that arbitrators wished to give the (then newly-imposed) community sanctions the chance to work; and , in which there is a consensus that community sanctions have failed.<p>I've named four editors. I could have named two or a dozen ---- the actual case I ask you to take is to look in general at behaviour on the topic area.—] <small>]/]</small> 17:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
;Response to Georgewilliamherbert | |||
Contrary to Georgewilliamherbert I don't see why it would be necessary for Arbcom to go deeply into the history here. Yes, there's a colossal content dispute to solve but that can only be done via mediation, to which this Arbcom case is a necessary prelude. Yes, editors have got a little overexcited in the content dispute and there are conduct issues to address, but in fact what's going on here, as I see it, is about poor judgment rather than bad faith. I can't produce the kind of diffs that are likely to lead to drastic action on Arbcom's part. I hope and expect this case will lead to nothing more than a number of targeted, focused interventions of limited scope and some guidance on how it is and isn't appropriate to behave.—] <small>]/]</small> 20:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by QuackGuru === | |||
] stated that "There's a much more meaningful problem here, a campaign to keep genuinely reliable sources out of these articles, to push a POV against scientific coverage and treat this {{em|solely}} as a "lifestyle and culture" topic." The issues are far more complicated than one administrator can handle. It involves taking a look at far more than merely behaviour. ] (]) 05:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by CFCF === | |||
This topic has been subject of a great number of ]s as well as the odd ]. The last dispute I got involved in was upon seeing a number of edits which removed relevant information . I tried to point to the concept of "known unknowns" and how it is treated in medicine. I also explained that the exact same discussion on including such unknowns had occurred just a month or so previously (of which some of very same editors had taken part in). My reluctance to take part in another circuitous discussion resulted in having an ANI-report filed against me. I do not know how to keep SPAs or paid editors away from this topic, so I welcome any ArbCom decision. -- ] ] (]) 17:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by SPACKlick === | |||
I'm aware of the case. I do believe some intervention is needed in this area there has been a long history of tendentious, battleground, ownership, socking, IDHT and it's not gotten better since the discretionary sanctions began. ] (]) 11:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by content-uninvolved Georgewilliamherbert === | |||
I was attempting to intervene as an uninvolved administrator but the scope and breadth of the disputes, the historical depth etc. has proved more complicated than I could absorb in my available time. This is a deep complicated one. I recommend the committee use an extended schedule on processing this one, as it will take far more digging and evidence production to adequately address it than average current cases. ] (]) 20:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by involved editor ] === | |||
Personally speaking I have taken a hiatus from the topic area due to the fact that it is an impossible environment for any editor that prefers consensus over edit-warring/ownership. So yes I certainly think an ArbCom case is required, particularly as all other routes have been exhausted, repeatedly. I would hope that it would be possible to perhaps re-examine my as part of this one.] (]) 21:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by mostly uninvolved Gigs === | |||
I have only participated sparsely on talk pages for these affected articles that I can recall. I will say that QuackGuru initially struck me as a highly motivated editor in this topic area, but the more I lurked, the more it became clear that they were using subtle and not-so-subtle tactics to subvert the content, steamrolling many other editors in the process. I steered clear from the entire topic area because of this toxicity. I suspect I'm not the only one. ] (]) 05:17, 2 August 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).'' | |||
* | |||
=== Electronic cigarette: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <11/0/0/0> === | |||
{{anchor|1=Electronic cigarette: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small> | |||
*'''Accept''' Clearly we're going to end up dealing with this sooner or later. ] ]] 12:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Accept''' per Yunshui --] | ] 22:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Accept'''. Last time this was raised at arbcom I had hopes that the community sanctions would work, but time has proven they have not. ] (]) 10:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Accept''' ] (]) 13:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Accept''' I think it is time we finally deal with this issue, it just is not being resolved. ] (]) 06:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Accept''' '']'' <sup>]</sup> 06:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Accept''' ''']''' (]) 14:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Accept'''. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 14:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Accept''', the community resolutions have clearly not been sufficient here. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
* As I said last time, '''Accept.''' ] ]] 19:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Accept''' ''']<font color="darkgreen">]</font>''' 15:45, 1 August 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
|