Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:10, 21 November 2015

Requests for arbitration

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Topics Regarding Allie X		18 November 2015	{{{votes}}}
Topic regarding electronic cigarettes		21 November 2015	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan	none	(orig. case)	27 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions	none	none	10 June 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	21 June 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Shortcuts

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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

This page is for statements, not discussion.

If you must reply to another user's statement, do so in your own section (more information).
Your section must not contain more than 500 words (Word Count Tool; internal gadget). This includes your replies to other users. To request an extension, either make the request in your statement section or email the clerks email list.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, eg off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
Declined case requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Topics Regarding Allie X

Initiated by SanctuaryX (talk) at 22:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

SanctuaryX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
WordSeventeen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Zpeopleheart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by SanctuaryX

As you can see in the closed ANI post, an admin already put page protections and closed the previous incident report on this page, but the people (WordSeventeen and Zpeopleheart) involved are still indirectly refusing to discuss any of the issues on the CollXtion I and Allie X talk pages. They are repeatedly undoing edits like alternative covers on all the Catch (Allie X Song) page.(dif here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catch_%28Allie_X_song%29&type=revision&diff=691268490&oldid=691263546 )(for being "WP:UNDUE" even though that has nothing to do with this. Undue is for viewpoint is it not? Including such things offers no opinion on the material. WordSeventeen, I have issues with in the past as well, with another ANI post detailing similar behavior. Their repeated refusal to discuss the issues (which you can see by looking at the talk pages and seeing they are blatantly ignoring everything while they continue to edit), repetitive undoing of edits as being "undue" which is not an applicable policy, among other easily visible points, seems to be WP:DISRUPT, WP:IDHT, WP:HOUNDING, WP:VANDALISM, even though they are obviously still on Wikipedia and continue to make disruptive edits, is making a negative impact. Zpeopleheart has been disregarding established guidelines like WP:MUSBIO, picking it apart like this is his way to illustrate his tendentious view on MUSBIO. And since they are using tools like Twinkle, they seem to be committing WP:TWINKLEABUSE as well. I realize not every source for dispute resolution has been totally exhausted but they are not receptive to voluntary practices, encouraged or not. edit: After filing this, instead of making comment here, they harassed me yet again on my talk page as well as WordSeventeen proceeding to propose deletion for the locked articles that are very much the same as when AfD was denied before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_November_19#Allie_X

Statement by WordSeventeen

Statement by Zpeopleheart

Statement by Kevin Gorman

I protected the two pages following a request at RFPP. Dispute is premature for arbitration. The involved parties can either work it out over the next week on talk, or they'll end up back at ANI and someone will end up getting blocked for disruption. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Uninvolved User:Robert McClenon

This statement is really addressed not to the arbitrators (because I am sure that the arbitrators will decline this case) but to the parties. Take the advice of administrator Kevin Gorman. This is, at its core, a content dispute, although it is compounded by conduct issues. Read the dispute resolution policy and heed it by discussing on the article talk page. If that discussion fails, consider that the content dispute procedures listed in the policy, unlike the conduct dispute procedures, do not result in users being sanctioned, and consider requesting moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard rather than going back to WP:ANI. If any of you are leaning toward WP:ANI or WP:ANEW, first read the boomerang essay.

Statement by Only in Death

My intent when asking for FPP for a limited time was for the users to either have it out on the talk pages or take it to AFD. A week was more than enough for either. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Clerk notes

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

Topics Regarding Allie X: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/7/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

Decline With admins still willing to enforce any issues, and the enforcement seeming to be straight forward, I have to agree with Kevin that this is premature for Arbitration. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. The primary issue seems to be a content dispute, and any conduct issues don't seem to be past the ability of community enforcement mechanisms to handle. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Per DQ and Seraphimblade, Roger Davies ^talk 09:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline We all seem to agree this is premature. Doug Weller (talk) 10:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. I guess I'll join the chorus here, this is premature and can be handled elsewhere easier. Courcelles (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline as premature. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline' Classic example of what shouldn't be taken to Arb Com. DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Topic regarding electronic cigarettes

Initiated by QuackGuru (talk) at 21:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
S Marshall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

diff of notification S Marshall

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by QuackGuru

Previous evidence regarding S Marshall. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor_conduct_in_e-cigs_articles/Evidence#S_Marshall_2 and see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor_conduct_in_e-cigs_articles/Evidence#Statement_by_QuackGuru.

It is my view S Marshall was waiting for this Arbcom case to be over to make significant changes to the page including deleting all the known unknowns, rather than respecting consensus. He thinks the known unknowns is useless crap. Information regarding the long-term heath effects is commonly included in numerous Wikipedia articles. The long-term heath effects of e-cigs is currently unknown. This is not useless information.

There was a previous discussion about deleting the text about "tobacco harm reduction" from the WP:LEDE. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 23#Removal. On 31 March 2015 S Marshall deleted "Their role in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear."[1] On 20 April 2015 he deleted "The role of electronic cigarettes in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear."[2] Now on 19 November 2015 he deleted "Their usefulness in tobacco harm reduction is unclear"[3] again.

S Marshall claims he only made one revert. The first revert deleted information about tobacco harm reduction was unclear. The text about tobacco harm reduction was restored by User:Johnbod.

The second revert was replacing two previous images when there was no consensus for the change according to User:Bluerasberry. The discussion was still ongoing.[4][5] Rather than have one image we currently have two images. He also deleted another image, but according to User:Sizeofint the point was to illustrate the e-hookah. S Marshall is making changes against status quo while talk page discussions are ongoing. He claims it was a preemptive change. But there was a discussion on the talk page that the text was misplaced. The misplaced text was removed from harm reduction. I added some of the text to the correct section. I did state it would be better to shorten the text when it is moved. There was a discussion to relocate the text.[6] See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Safety_claim_in_Harm_reduction..

S Marshall is making claims against me without supporting evidence. I don't think this should continue with the reverting and changes when others disagree. QuackGuru (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by S Marshall

I don't know what made QuackGuru think this was a good idea. It's a really stupid idea. I would be content for him to withdraw this request if he suddenly comes to his senses, and if he doesn't then I would urge Arbcom to decline it. There's nothing here that can't be sorted out in the clarification and amendment request that AlbinoFerret filed (and to which QuackGuru subsequently and unilaterally added me as a party) or, preferably, at WP:AE.

Please don't accept the case, as I only have 21 years until I retire and I'd like to be able to fix our article on electronic cigarettes before then.—S Marshall T/C 22:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Clerk notes

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

Topic regarding electronic cigarette: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

@@ Line 92: / Line 92: @@
 === Statement by S Marshall ===
+I don't know what made QuackGuru think this was a good idea.  It's a really stupid idea.  I would be content for him to withdraw this request if he suddenly comes to his senses, and if he doesn't then I would urge Arbcom to decline it.  There's nothing here that can't be sorted out in the clarification and amendment request that AlbinoFerret filed (and to which QuackGuru subsequently and unilaterally added me as a party) or, preferably, at WP:AE.<p>Please don't accept the case, as I only have 21 years until I retire and I'd like to be able to fix our article on electronic cigarettes before then.—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 22:09, 21 November 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.