Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions
→Statement Jeff G.: by (doh!) |
→Request for mediation: Non-lethal weapon page;: remove malformed and misplaced request; will help filing party on talkpage |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
=== Arbitrator views and discussion === |
=== Arbitrator views and discussion === |
||
---- |
|||
== Request for mediation: [[Non-lethal weapon]] page; == |
|||
'''Initiated by ''' A REDDSON '''at''' 01:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:'' |
|||
*{{userlinks|Andering J. REDDSON}} (initiator) |
|||
*{{userlinks|Berean Hunter}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Berean_Hunter&diff=prev&oldid=445753099 notification] |
|||
*{{userlinks|Binksternet}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Binksternet&diff=prev&oldid=445753351 notification] |
|||
*{{userlinks|Marcus Qwertyus}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marcus_Qwertyus&diff=prev&oldid=445753488 notification] |
|||
=== Statement by Andering J. REDDSON === |
|||
I am requestion mediation on [[Non-lethal weapon|“Non-Lethal Weap”]] specifically against |
|||
[[User:Berean Hunter|⋙–Berean–Hunter—►]]. I have attempted to remove a source from the page; Specifically, that Amnesty [[Criticism of Amnesty International|Amnesty International is considered biased by Wikipedia itself]], yet is quoted as a “reputable source.” [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] even said ''“Amnesty International is biased, of course, but they are a reliable source.”''<br /> |
|||
Bear with me if I did this wrong, but I’m actually not sure how to do this. (For example I already know that my username links are broken, but I just can’t seem to figure out how to fix them.) |
|||
=== Statement by [[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]] === |
|||
I have fixed the username links and notified the other users involved. Many organizations have biases in their interpretations of facts, both claimed and admitted, but most of those can still be trusted to report the facts correctly. — '''<span style="background:Yellow;color:Blue;">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff]] [[User:Jeff G./talk|G. ツ]]</span>''' 01:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by other user === |
|||
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements --> |
|||
=== Clerk notes === |
|||
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' |
|||
=== Arbitrator views and discussion === |
|||
---- |
---- |
||
Revision as of 06:36, 20 August 2011
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: WP:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names|Request for clarification: WP:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names]] | none | none | 19 August 2011 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Requests for clarification
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header
Request for clarification: WP:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names
Initiated by Fmph (talk) at 19:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Fmph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Statement by Fmph
Can I direct ArbCom's attention to the first motion in this case. It states that "... no page moves shall be initiated for a period of 2 years" and that ruling is in force until September 18, 2011. Can ArbCom please clarify what they expect to happen on the 18th September?
There have been continued 'suggestions' over the last 23 months that the articles should be moved. So the issue has not gone away. I have made a suggestion (in response to a question as to whether the prohibition should be extended) as to what should happen. If ArbCom think its not a bad idea, perhaps they would like to endorse it, or something like it?
I will notify the project that I have opened this clarification.
Statement by other user
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).