This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rlevse (talk | contribs) at 02:13, 17 February 2009 (→Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/1): decline). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Active editnotice

WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:RfA Review (WP:RREV).

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

• WP:RFAR
• WP:A/R
• WP:ARB/R
• WP:ARBREQ

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Current requests

Bollywood films and plagiarism page

Initiated by Zhanzhao (talk) at 10:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Zhanzhao (talk · contribs), filing party
• Shshshsh (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff. 1
• Shshshsh (talk · contribs) Posted 10:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

] under "Plagiarism: explanation, guidance and warning." Talk:Bollywood_films_and_plagiarism under "# 17 Oldboy/Zinda and Hitch/Partners", "# 18 Clarifications for identifying plagiarism" and "# 19 Zinda is an a prime example of plagiarism"

Statement by Zhanzhao

I'd like to request arbitration on the state of the Bollywood films and plagiarism. Recently, there has been mass removal of listed movies that has been plagiarised. Previously, links and citations have been given for the reasons the movies were included, but the list was stil being removed, citing a vague WP:RS as reason. When the other party claimed 2 of the sites were not credible (without saying why, especially for iefilmi.com), alternative links were given as citations, with explanations on why I think the citations are valid. And still the list is still being removed without explaining why the new citations were not good enough.

A good example of this is for the movie Zinda which was not only identified but being sued for plagiarism ] by the owners of the original Oldboy according to news releases. The Zinda article even gives a point-by-point of what was copied, and yet it is still apparently not good enough to be accepted by Shshshsh as a legitimate entry. I had specifically asked him why the movie should not appear on the list, but the only response was its removal yet again.

The other user has also resorted to unreasonable requests to make my contributions harder including:

1) Multiple threats to force me to stop what he claimed was unfair undoes,

2) Requesting that I list the new entries one entry at a time (for the whole list). Which I did.

3) Disallowing reasonable citations with a vague reason, requesting alternative citations other than the ones previously given, then later rejecting the new citations as invalid without reason yet again.

4) Repeatedly failing to elaborate why the citations are rejected.

5) Repeatedly removing the list from the page even when previous requests have been carried out (point 2 and 3)

The other party claims that the list will be removed soon as "That's the decision of established editors and admins." I don't know how credible this threat is, so am requesting an objective third party authority to step in regarding this matter. I am also doing this as the other party had threatened to take "admin action" against me, and I want to have my say in case anything happens to my account.

Thanks in advance for your help on this.

Best Regards. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Response to other parties

I find that some of you guys are a little too zealous and overboard in the management of this article. Case in point, the films Zinda and Partners are so obvious copies that they are already in the danger of being sued by the original owners for infringements 2 3 and yet these items are being removed from the list? How more concrete can you get with this? Websites that state the exact plot similarities 4 are not allowed, individual reviews from multiple sites are apparently are not allowed either. And yet any editor with an account is allegedly more credible than any of these sources.

I seriously beg to difer. For one, I see nowhere on the page where the 2 sites I mentioned are disallowed. For one, iefilmi.com is a website of an actual advisory board composed of film and movie professionals an journalists, and specifically states that it takes "all reasonable care to ensure that pages published by the site are objective, accurate and factual on the stated date of publication or last modification". Which unless you yourself are in the industry, holds more credibility than any mere fan or editor.

Statement by Shshshsh

Just to make it clear to you Zhanzhao, imdb, bollycat, letfilmi, akhilesh, oneindia are not reliable sources. There might have been others which I did not catch. I suggest you to read first WP:RS, that will help you understand the matter. Newspapers are most welcomed for example. Also, the sources must mention the fact that a film is plagiarised. If it says that it is a remake - it is not alleged of pagiarism. You are not the one who will "allege". Reputable sources are. Everything must be sourced, and the burden of proof is only on you, not on me. You can prove something only with using a reliable source. In this case the source you cited is ureliable.

I demand that every line be followed by an inline citation which contains a reliable source (preferably from newspapers) and which clearly states that the film was accused of plagiarism (or accuses the film itself).

Another full version reversal from your part will be considered violation of these policies and therefore a deliberate act of vandalism which most certainly may cause to your immediate block.

Statement by Dr. Blofeld

User:Shshshsh is correct to regard imdb, bollycat, letfilmi, akhilesh, oneindia as unreliable. Most editors either add POV to these Bollywood articles saying it was a "super hit" and superstar Aamir Khan etc which makes the articles dreadfully sound like a fan blog or blatantly vandalise the article or add unreferenced potentially libelous material such as "John Abraham cheated on Bipasha and she blew up his Mercedes in revenge" or "Salman Khan was one of the instigators in the 1993 Bombay bombings" etc rubbish like that so are correctly reverted. Other than this, some editors occasionally think they are adding something useful which is done in good faith but more often that not do not use ereliable sources, they often cite blogs such as those above which are against our source guidelines or just add information which is really not relevant to the article e.g "Kareena Kapoor buys her sausages with her name customised on them from Hamburg, Germany, or Preity Zinta has her socks shipped from Guinea as she loves the West Africa look", things like that. At least 95% of the time editors like Shshshsh are doing an excellent job of blocking out these bad edits and trying to maintain some level of decency in the articles, without editors such as this protecting them they would quickly degrade to a lower level. However very rarely some additions are appropriate but may require citations to back them up, so I would ask Shahid to check these out rather than being too dismissive. Most of them time I believe he does this, for example him finding citations to Bollywoods releases overseas. Dr. Blofeld 13:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/1)

• Decline. This would be best sent over to WP:RFC, as dispute resolution hasn't been tried yet. Wizardman 14:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. There is nothing here that indicates to me that the community is unable to resolve this. Please utilize the available dispute resolution options. Vassyana (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. Other methods of dispute resolution, such as RfC, a third opinion request, or if necessary mediation, are in order here. I would also like to urge all editors to be mindful of our policy on biographies of living persons with respect to this material: an insufficiently supported allegation that a motion picture professional has "plagiarized" a film would be a very serious matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. I concur with my colleagues above, and would also encourage the editors to consider the biographies of living persons policy in their handling of articles about people. Risker (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - not entirely sure how valid the request is, seeing as it was posted whole by one of the parties, and later modified by the other party. But assuming both parties are happy with the statements that have been posted under their names, I am leaning to decline for now, for various reasons which I will expand on once it is clear how valid the request is. Carcharoth (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline; suitable dispute resolution methods like WP:RSN, WP:BLPN and WP:RFC have not been attempted yet.
  Note: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) has merged/redirected the page to Bollywood#Plagiarism (merge). There are plenty of sources that could be used to expand this topic, however any attempt to do so should be very careful about RS/BLP/etc. The prior version of the article was accusing Welcome (film) of plagiarising Mickey Blue Eyes based on a glowing review from the BBC which says "Inspired by the Hollywood flick, Mickey Blue Eyes, Bazmee packs Welcome with slapstick humour and rib-tickling hilarious comedy throughout till the end.". John Vandenberg 01:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline — Rlevse • Talk • 02:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarifications and other requests

• WP:RFAC
• WP:RCAM

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

• Misplaced Pages arbitration