Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
GoldenRing (talk | contribs)
6,922 edits
GoldenRing (talk | contribs)
6,922 edits
→‎Malicious Editing: Removing request for arbitration: declined by the Committee
Line 6: Line 6:
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=45%</noinclude>}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=45%</noinclude>}}

== Malicious Editing ==
'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Integrity4488hope|Integrity4488hope]] ([[User talk:Integrity4488hope|talk]]) '''at''' 23:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|Integrity4488hope}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|gorilla1978}}

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGorilla1978&type=revision&diff=786857934&oldid=786837675 diff of notification gorilla1978]

;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
tried to explain on history - posted on his talk page - posted on Valenciano's talk page asking for help
* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Episcopal_Church&action=history
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Valenciano

=== Statement by Integrity4488hope ===
gorilla1978 has posted vandalic, malicious and irrelevant material to the page, as well as material that is historically subjective and partisan.
Especially:
*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Episcopal_Church&oldid=786836256 - However, his literary tour de force must be his 2017 blog "How to Cope with Hot Nights", which stresses the importance of nudity in the bedroom on those sticky summer evenings. This blog article will doubtless have saved many from the misery of sweaty armpits and crotches. http://bishopjonathanblake.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/how-to-cope-with-hot-nights.html?m=1
* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Episcopal_Church&oldid=786846002 The lack of any judicial or disciplinary structures makes the church vulnerable to archbishops who have little self-awareness or self-discipline.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Episcopal_Church&oldid=786770798 In 2014 a significant number of people left the Open Episcopal Church because of Jonathan Blake's social media posts and his response when faced with criticism about them. Those who left included priests, deacons, ordinands, a lay herald and the Bishop of Scotland. In addition some international churches in communion with the OEC severed ties. Since this time, several clerics have left the church and its number of active ministers was reduced. [1]

Originally, not understanding the edit rules restricting removing material, I did so, then Valenciano's post to gorilla1978 made me aware, so i tried to add further information instead, but gorilla1978 appeared intent on maliciously editing the page, hence asking for help.

=== Statement by gorilla1978 ===

=== Statement by uninvolved Softlavender ===
{{u|Integrity4488hope}}, this case will not be accepted by ArbCom because this is the wrong venue for your dispute. You and {{u|Gorilla1978}} need to stop edit warring, and start discussing the issues civilly on the talk page of the article (not on user talkpages). I recommend that an administrator ({{U|Ad Orientem}}, you deal with churches, right?) full-protect [[Open Episcopal Church]] until such discussions are underway and hopefully resolved. If either of you desire assistance, post a neutral query on the talkpage of the relevant WikiProject ({{U|Ad Orientem}}, perhaps you could also determine what those are and post the banners on the article's talkpage). Both {{u|Integrity4488hope}} and {{u|Gorilla1978}} should read [[WP:BRD]]. If there are any further issues, feel free to utilize [[WP:TEAHOUSE]] and/or [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]]. (Last note, to whom it may concern: Both of these editors have edited solely on this article, and both have under 30 edits.) -- [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 02:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

{{Re|Callanecc}} You wrote "{{xt|Try the suggestions at [[WP:DR#Resolving content disputes]] (most of which you have already tried)}}", but the two parties involved have not tried any of those things. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 07:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by uninvolved Beyond My Ken ===
This appears to be a simple content dispute between a critic of the [[Open Episcopal Church]] and an advocate for the church. As indicated by the comments of the first 3 Arbs below, this does not seem to be ripe for Arbitration, although an admin might like to take a look at the edit-warring involved and wield the banhammer a little. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 01:32, 23 June 2017 (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.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*

=== Malicious Editing: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/0> ===
{{anchor|1=Malicious Editing: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small>
*'''Decline''' as premature. No talk page discussion since 2011. That should be the first of many steps before coming to arbitration. --[[User:kelapstick|kelapstick]]<sup>([[User talk:Kelapstick#top|bainuu]]) </sup> 00:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
*Procedural '''decline''' as dispute resolution or any form of recent discussion directly between the two editors has yet to occur. Additionally, much of the filing is about content rather than editorial conduct. Both editors have seemingly violated the [[WP:3RR]] at [[Open Episcopal Church]], repeatedly. '''[[User:Mkdw|<span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw</span>]]''' [[User talk:Mkdw|<sup>''<span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk</span>''</sup>]] 00:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' as above. We have lots of much simpler dispute resolution options you should try first. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 04:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
*Decline. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 01:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' per preceding. [[User:Casliber|Cas Liber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 05:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' per all of above. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 09:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' Ditto. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 09:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' per Mkdw and OR. Try the suggestions at [[WP:DR#Resolving content disputes]] <s>(most of which you have already tried)</s>, then try the suggestions at [[WP:CONTENTDISPUTE]]. They will be a lot simpler and involve less stress than an arbitration case. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 07:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
**{{ping|Softlavender}} my mistake. I thought I saw an attempt at discussion. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 07:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


== User sabotaging efforts to improve [[Yitzchak Ginsburgh]] ==
== User sabotaging efforts to improve [[Yitzchak Ginsburgh]] ==

Revision as of 18:56, 25 June 2017

Shortcut


Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#User sabotaging efforts to improve Yitzchak Ginsburgh|User sabotaging efforts to improve Yitzchak Ginsburgh]]   22 June 2017 0/7/0
Cross-Strait conflict: PRC and ROC   23 June 2017 0/7/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
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) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024
Motion name Date posted
Block of Rp2006 18 June 2024

User sabotaging efforts to improve Yitzchak Ginsburgh

Initiated by 238-Gdn (talk) at 22:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

discussions on talk page

Statement by 238-Gdn

Nomoskedasticity has been sabotaging attempts made to improve the article Yitzchak Ginsburgh. As a new editor, I made efforts to adapt new material following his and other editors' comments,[5] yet Nomoskedasticity has persistently removed[6][7] and hidden new material sometimes without valid reason.[8] He has challenged almost every reference, and has insisted on retaining certain parts of the article, even when editors' consensus has been against them.[9][10] All this has pointed to violation of WP:OWN, as pointed out [11]. He had Arbpia restrictions placed on the page, which prevented me from editing it until I had gained 500 edits, effectively gaming the system. Once this was in effect he took the liberty to make extensive changes[12] to the article.

Today, with more than 500 edits, I returned to edit the page, and have already been met with the same stubborn attitude.[13][14] To the list of students, I added a name that Nomoskedasticity had previously deleted because the individual had no wikipedia article about him. The article now exists, but he tagged the new article with a request for deletion.[15] I see this as part of his continued efforts to prevent this page from developing. I have tried to amiably discuss the issues on the talk page,[16] but to no avail. I have not turned to any other form of dispute resolution because this is not a local dispute concerning a one-time act of misconduct or edit-warring; rather, the user obviously has a general aversion to the article and its subject, which is preventing him from viewing new material objectively.

@Softlavender: Thanks for the advice. I checked out the options you mentioned and chose to approach it from here. We're not talking about disputes about the individual content, which could hopefully be dealt with gracefully, but the behavior of the user regarding this particular page. The discussions have been neutral and civil, but all attempts have been met with consistent stubborness, repeated reversions etc., as mentioned above, as well as refusal to accept changes that do not reflect the editor's point of view. The behavior of this editor so far on the aforementioned article points to a deeper problem than disputes about content. 238-Gdn (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nomoskedasticity

Statement by uninvolved Softlavender

238-Gdn, you are in the wrong place. ArbCom is not the venue for content dispute resolution. The venue for that is via neutral and civil discussions on the talk page of the article. If you fail to arrive at a WP:CONSENSUS there, you can also post a neutral invitation on the talk page of the relevant WikiProjects listed on that talk page, and/or utilize some form of dispute resolution. If after all of those procedures have been utilized, you still feel there is a behavioral issue which impedes resolution, you may bring your concerns to WP:ANI, but generally only after you have utlized all of those processes beforehand. Also: Do not discuss article content on user talkpages; keep the discussions confined to the article talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@238-Gdn: You're not getting it. You are not allowed to post a dispute at ArbCom unless you have gone through other dispute-resolution procedures (which you have not) and exhausted them first. If you truly believe this is solely a behavioral issue, then post your concerns at WP:ANI, not here. I predict however that the case will be thrown out even there, because you have not utilized any WP:DR for the content issues, and no matter how you slice it, every issue you are talking about begins with content, and if you have never attempted any form of DR even once, the folks at ANI are going to note that and count it in your disfavor. You are a brand-new and extremely inexperienced editor [17]; please take the advice of extremely experienced editors before you achieve results you do not want, such as WP:BOOMERANG. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2017 (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).

User sabotaging efforts to improve Yitzchak Ginsburgh: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/7/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Cross-Strait conflict: PRC and ROC

Initiated by Supreme Dragon (talk) at 00:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Pages that related to Cross-Strait conflict for example:

Statement by Supreme Dragon

Because of the PRC/ROC edit confusion, I propose this case to make it similar to how the Israeli-Palestinian articles are treated as such and we wanted the articles related to the Cross-Strait entities under 1RR enforcement. Since many people referred to either the Republic of China as "Taiwan" the island and the People's Republic of China as "China" things came out of hand because Taiwan was a former Japanese colony for 50 years.

How about we propose a WikiProject Cross-Strait collaboration just like how the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration did. Is there a way to resolve this issue?

Another issue is the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAME, why can't most pages like the PRC and ROC follow the Chinese Wikipedia?

Statement by JohnBlackburne

Not sure exactly what is being proposed here, but I have some prior experience of arbitration and this is not a suitable matter for arbitration, both in what is being asked and in other avenues being exhausted.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Matt Smith

I'm not sure about what specific actions you would like to perform. Could you please elaborate? --Matt Smith (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lemongirl942

Statement by Kanguole

Statement by AjaxSmack

Statement by Miklcct

Although undoubtedly, the WP:COMMONNAME of PRC is China and WP:COMMONNAME of ROC is Taiwan, it is not always true along the history, and after the prolonged discussion of Talk:Taiwan/Archive 20, the original Republic of China article (most of which is about the current state commonly known as Taiwan) moved to Taiwan and it is supposed that "An article narrowly formulated about the government of Taiwan and its history can be created at Republic of China."

However, the attempt to do the latter is frequently get reverted over years, leaving ongoing confusion, and against consensus of the discussion.

Statement by George Ho

I have been involved in ArbCom. This time, the issue hasn't escalated yet. I told the requestor to reconsider filing the request. However, seems that the requestor wants to go ahead as intended and do this. Honestly, China and Taiwan titling has been debated for so long, yet I request that the full case be declined. Unsure about a motion as there were disagreements at one talk page (formerly "Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/China"). One editor accusing another of something like this, though it's self-reverted. Still, the requestor (Supreme Dragon) and Szqecs should reconsider pursuing the titling changes further. --George Ho (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, declining a motion either. --George Ho (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Softlavender

Supreme Dragon, this case request is going to be turned down flat by ArbCom. You have not engaged in even one single form of Dispute Resolution. And this is a content dispute, which ArbCom never deals with. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question for ArbCom: What the hell is with the plethora of brand-new [20] editors making unwarranted ArbCom case requests this week? Are the warnings about exhausting all other forms of dispute resolution not clear or visible enough? Apparently not, so could someone fix that? I'm tired of typing the same thing over and over and over again. Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2017 (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).

Cross-Strait conflict: PRC and ROC: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/7/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Decline. Seriously: what the editor is proposing is in no way the business of ArbCom. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. I don't think Supreme Dragon understands the arbitration process or the role of ArbCom under the WP:ARBPOL. Mkdw talk 02:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline premature. Could open RfC for starters. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per above. --kelapstick(bainuu) 05:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline the "prior dispute resolution" consists of a revert and a fix of a link to a disambiguation page from a year ago? (That has to be a mis-paste, right?) Premature and not really within our scope. Try an RfC if needed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per all above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline ditto. Doug Weller talk 09:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per above. While I realise that this is a difficult and controversial issue at the moment, there are many other (less lengthy and stressful) options (see WP:CONTENTDISPUTE) you should try before arbitration. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=787495674"