Revision as of 18:54, 3 February 2012

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Requests for arbitration

Reliable Sources Noticeboard closures

Initiated by Granateple (talk) at 03:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Granateple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Fifelfoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HandThatFeeds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wgfinley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff. 1 Diff. 1 is found here
• Diff. 2 Diff. 2 is found here
• Diff. 3 Diff. 3 is found here

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Link 1
• Link 2

Statement by {Granateple}

A non-admin recently (26 January 2012) closed an discussion on Reliable sources/Noticeboard (RS/N). The editor in question brought the closure before the Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents (ANI) for review, but the Admin folks didn’t want to review the closure.

When the incident grew, the same editor filled in a request for Arbitration Enforcement, an automatic machinery took over, granted it (User:WGFinley), and suddenly did I become a member of the Transcendental Meditation Movement. I am a newcomer to Misplaced Pages, with a scientific outlook, so this was a pleasant surprise.

When I posted my inauguration speech as a newly appointed TM master at ANI at 17:04 1 February 2012, the thread lasted less than three hours. The case was closed (this time by another non-admin).

These two incidents are contained in only two threads. I have no diffs, and nothing to complain about expect for these two incidents. It is not a content dispute. Misplaced Pages depend on free and open discussion. A discussion between several editors was halted and closed, and this act has not been reviewed. One part of the closure summary read: “User Granateple is reminded that contributing too much to a discussion damages the quality of that discussion”. As a newcomer to Misplaced Pages, I am surprised if this is how Misplaced Pages works.

The first thread is called “Is Hindawi a RS publisher for this content?” (the original discussion) and is found on RS/N. The second thread is called “Please review my closure of an RS/N discussion (restored from archive)”. It contain many tales, told and untold. It is now archived at ANI (number 738).

User:Fifelfoo did the RS/N closure. User:HandThatFeeds did the ANI closure. HandThatFeeds mentioned ArbCom for me, and this user is very sure (for some reason) that you will dismiss my RFAR.Granateple (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Fifelfoo

This is a resolved dispute.

• The community has rather clearly indicated its satisfaction with the closure:

• and
• and

• Granateple's conduct issues have been resolved through an appropriate warning of pre-existing discretionary sanctions:

As such, there is nothing for Arbcom to do here. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by {HandThatFeeds}

Statement by Wgfinley

As a piece of machinery (AKA rouge admin) I'm not certain I'm qualified to respond to this request, I'll do my best. The filing party was recently warned of discretionary sanctions as outlined in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement#Final decision resulting from an AE Report. The warning was largely due to filibustering at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard in regard to "open access journals" and their use in TM articles. After the warning the filing party issued a proclamation at AN/I. This filing is pretty much a blatant WP:POINT violation and aimed at inciting the masses to rise up against the cabal and completely obscure any valid point he/she might have had about a premature RS Noticeboard closing. --WGFinley (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Olive

Granateple has left Misplaced Pages . I don't blame him. Last night I watched Sue Gardner talk about editor retention and how the first year is where editors are lost in part because of treatment on Misplaced Pages. Granateple had been editing for about 4-5 months. English (he says he is Norwegian) is almost certainly not his first language. He showed up on a NB to comment on a source. His comments were in favour of the source, but there were many comments that weren't. His style is more wordy than many probably a result of using a second language , but he was polite and serious about the discussion. The NB was closed in less than a day and a half by Fiflefoo based on some pretty massive misassumptions. Granateple had a right to feel frustrated given the blame laid at his door. Filfelfoo closed the discussion in large part based on the fact that Granateple was an involved editor. He isn't .Granatepele has never edited a TM article. He was accused of tag teaming, based I assume on the so called involved editor status. In total Fifelfoo's closing comments written in the tone of an arbitration which DGG later commented on , and had little basis in reality. An/I here.

I don't think Grataeple knew where to turn next, and his postings on AN/I indicate that.

I'll note that Wgfinley said Granateple was a single purpose account. He isn't. Granateple was warned per the TM arbitration. This was a NB and Granteple has never edited a TM article and was an uninvolved editor. If this is the standard then every editor who comes to a NB where questions have a risen from any one of the 80 or so TM articles should be warned.

I don't think this is an arbitration situation, but I think editors have to be much more careful about the evidence they post about other editors. Right now Misplaced Pages does not deal very well with misassumption, and falsehood. The process is upside down. Decide an editor is guilty and dig up evidence to prove that. Carelessness, in comments against other editors, is rampant on Misplaced Pages perhaps because reading through a long thread is unpleasant and time consuming. What we have to remember seems to me is that once an editor has been labelled even incorrectly , its almost impossible to get past that . There are those willing always to poison the well, those who encourage it, and those who will look the other way and let it happen. Granateple in commenting on this NB has now been warned and labelled. How does a new editor or any editor undo that?

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)

• Decline You were merely notified about the existence of the discretionary sanctions. While this was a formal notification/warning, they are things that any editor moving about in a topic area under them needs to be aware of. While an appeal of an actual sanction could be heard by this committee (though normally it is the last appeal option) there is nothing to "appeal" here. These discretionary sanctions exist, now you know about them, and can choose your actions accordingly; for the record, the TM sanctions apply no matter which "side" you are on. Courcelles 05:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, we do not normally review closures of ordinary discussions. Basically, everything here is skipping half a dozen steps in process and jumping right to the endgame. Courcelles 05:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with Courcelles. Suggest carefully reviewing Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, and trying to resolve the dispute using the earlier stages of the dispute resolution process. PhilKnight (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Decline for the same reasons that have been outlined above,  Roger Davies 15:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Decline per the above. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)