Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:17, 12 March 2016

Requests for arbitration

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
European Graduate School Article Content		11 March 2016	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Aug 2024	03 Sep 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	8 August 2024
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	none	none	26 July 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, e.g. 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.

European Graduate School Article Content

Initiated by Claudioalv (talk) at 18:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Claudioalv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Link 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/European_Graduate_School_article_content_-_Accreditation_issue
Link 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:European_Graduate_School #3 different Request for Comment

Statement by Claudioalv

European Graduate School article is biased because it hosts false statement (Michigan information about the lack of accreditation) and it does not host any contribution regarding the Malta Accreditation (i.e. E.U. Accreditation) even if the school is European and Bologna rules should apply to European School. Someone tried to edit the article with the EU accreditation on March 1, but after 30 minutes user "JzG" reverted the article taking off the information regaring a legittimate accreditation conferred according to Maltese law [2]

The content about the EGS article is inaccurate and partially false. I have tried with others despute resolution processess (talk page, RfC, Mediation) to bring other administrators in the discussion, but Wikipedia community does not care about it. How long time should I wait before some different user would address the issues I raised? Does it take so much time to verify that Notes and References 14 of the article is false and outdated? Claudioalv (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GRuban. I disagree with you because each time I attempted to raise some arguments Wikipedia community has been indifferent. If you are suggesting to decline my request, I would not have any other dispute resolution process available. Why no one administrator is checking the information I provided and is editing the article? Is Guy the only one with the power to edit the article? It should not take longer, and I think that is unfair that Guy has the final say of the article. Lastly, what are the advantages for Wikipedia Community to host a false link (Note and Reference no. 14)? It is very unclear to me. It seems to me that having joined the Wikipedia community has been a waste of time because they are blind and deaf to my arguments.thanksClaudioalv (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG I have provided some detailed information, and I would like to check sources for not stating that the school is accredited. As an arb you can't check Notes and Reference no. 14 at the botton of the article, can you?thanksClaudioalv (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel . "The Committee is the venue of last resort". I have written more than 15 times in the talk page, I have requested 3 RFC and one mediation. I was blocked by Guy and I filed 4 unblock request before  @Vanjagenije accepted my request. Before requesting the Committee what should I have done more? Bringing Wikipedia in some court of law for breach of contract? No one is reading my contribution, and the few administrators who agree [i.e. they agree because they spend some time reading my post and they found that the Malta accreditation should be included] with that are not able to edit the article. By declining my request Wikipedia Community is showing how is totally indifferent to the fact that Wikipedia Article content is partially false, outdated, inaccurate and misleading. Now I understand that the content article would never change because administrators are blind to my contributions. You can also ban me as requested by "Guy" the expert administrator that preserve the truth according to Wikipedia policy. I am understanding that other administrators are a lightweight compared to "Guy". He has the final say. Writing in the talk page, requesting unblocks, posting contribution with verifiable links and sources, requesting for a mediation has been a waste of time to me. No one has listened to me or read what I have written.

The Committee should accept the case because the Wikipedia community has been blind so far and Wikipedia readers are guided through false statement made by User JzG (i.e. refusing to recognize Malta even if it a sovereign country and part of the EU and refuse to take off a false statement regarding Michigan State in the Accreditation Section of the article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudioalv (talk • contribs)

Statement by Guy

user:Claudioalv is just the latest in a long long line of single purpose accounts who have come to Wikipedia for the sole purpose of trying to change the article European Graduate School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to obscure its questionable status. This user has initiated a number of RfCs, made protected edit requests and argued at great length on the talk page, the arguments are identical in each case, always involving WP:SYN; the proposed change is also the same, and the response to dissent is WP:IDHT.

Among the text added to the article by the SPAs is the statement that EGS is an "EU accredited Institution of Higher Education" - Googling this phrase shows that the only people using this term of art are EGS.

The previous SPAs, including puppeteers and puppets, have generally been blocked. I think its long past time this user joined them. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved GRuban

I took the liberty of editing the initiator's request by changing the mention of Guy to JzG (talk · contribs) (presumably in reference to Zaphod Beeblebrox), who now signs Guy (which, I am guessing, is actually his real first name). I think the request should be declined, as Guy is reasonably responsive on the article talk page, is quite experienced in the area, and is regularly joined on the article talk page by not only another administrator (User:Vanjagenije), but an active arbitrator (User:DGG). I somehow think they can handle it. --GRuban (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2016 (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).

Fixed various formatting and layout errors. Amortias (T)(C) 22:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Recused. Amortias (T)(C) 23:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moved Claudioalv's comments to his own section. Please confine your responses to this area. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

European Graduate School Article Content: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/7/1/0>

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

Decline as still in early stages of what appears to be a content/POV dispute. Wider audiences are good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Recused I have been much involved in trying to keep promotionalism out of the article to be involved as an arb. If accepted, I shall probably offer evidence. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. The Committee does not rule on matters of content, only matters of policy. The Committee is the venue of last resort, not first. Please attempt other means of dispute resolution before filing a case. Gamaliel (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Gamaliel. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Way to early. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Gamaliel. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Not nearly ready for arbitration, and hopefully will be resolved much easily somewhere else. Courcelles (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Courcelles. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OtherThanks everyone for declining my request. Also mediation was declined and in the article talk page "Guy" is the only one who takes decision. Other administrator have formally stated to include the school, but when someone attempted to edit the content article "Guy" promptly reverted. At this point I have no further relief, so Claudioalv (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)I would suggest to change the name of your Encyclopedia for which you should be proud in "Guy's" Encyclopedia.[reply]

@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 *'''Decline''' Not nearly ready for arbitration, and hopefully will be resolved much easily somewhere else. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|talk]]) 04:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 *'''Decline''' per Courcelles. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 06:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
+*'''Other'''Thanks everyone for declining my request. Also mediation was declined and in the article talk page "Guy" is the only one who takes decision. Other administrator have formally stated to include the school, but when someone attempted to edit the content article "Guy" promptly reverted. At this point I have no further relief, so [[User:Claudioalv|Claudioalv]] ([[User talk:Claudioalv|talk]]) 14:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)I would suggest to change the name of your Encyclopedia for which you should be proud in "Guy's" Encyclopedia.