Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions
→Arjun MBT: Decline as rejected |
→Adraeus v. Deacon of Pndapetzim in the matter of Robert de Brus, 1st Lord of Annandale: Declined as rejected |
||
| Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
---- |
|||
=== Adraeus v. Deacon of Pndapetzim in the matter of [[Robert de Brus, 1st Lord of Annandale]] === |
|||
'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Adraeus|Adraeus]] ([[User talk:Adraeus|talk]]) '''at''' 11:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==== Involved parties ==== |
|||
* {{user|Adraeus}}, ''filing party'' |
|||
* {{admin|Deacon of Pndapetzim}} |
|||
:{| style="background: none;" |
|||
| |
|||
; Confirmation of notice |
|||
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim&oldid=248385544 Deacon of Pndapetzim—11:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)] |
|||
; Confirmation of alternative dispute resolution |
|||
No formal attempt at dispute resolution was made due to the defendant having status as an administrator and due to the combativeness of the defendant. |
|||
|} |
|||
==== Statement by [[User:Adraeus|Adraeus]] ==== |
|||
On October 1, I researched the subject and found numerous sources. The information I found was then included in the article with complete and proper citations. On October 27, the administrator Deacon of Pndapetzim [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_de_Brus,_1st_Lord_of_Annandale&oldid=248133590 reverted] the entire article, asserting "rv mass edit ... sorry, most of this is historical nonsense". Deacon made no attempt to explain his actions. In response, I reverted his reversion as vandalism, where vandalism is defined as willful wanton and malicious activity, and made my intentions to seek arbitration on his talk page should he persist in such activity. The following day, on October 28, Deacon [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_de_Brus,_1st_Lord_of_Annandale&oldid=248353954 reverted] my reversion, adding a comment to the article's Talk page where he labelled my researched and cited material as "historical fiction," and proceeded to fallaciously "appeal to authority" without any argument of substance or civil request for discussion. Despite being an administrator, Deacon is apparently unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. I again reverted his reversion as vandalism. [[User:Adraeus|Adraeus]] ([[User talk:Adraeus|talk]]) 11:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Addendum: [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is '''verifiability, not truth''' — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, '''not whether we think it is true'''." [Latter emphasis added.] This policy burdens Deacon with the responsibility to prove that the sources used are unreliable. [[User:Adraeus|Adraeus]] ([[User talk:Adraeus|talk]]) 12:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:'''RE Statement by [[user:Scott MacDonald]]'''<br />I've been contributing to Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Adraeus since 2004]. ''Every'' article on a corporation in Wikipedia features my work. You've been an editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Scott+MacDonald since May 2008]. Who's new now? Nice try. [[User:Adraeus|Adraeus]] ([[User talk:Adraeus|talk]]) 12:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==== Statement by [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] ==== |
|||
Lol ... why is this guy being allowed to waste the time of so many users. Can someone just block him for tendentiousness? [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 14:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:'''At Jehochman'''<br /><small>Clerk Note: Comment moved from Jehochman's section; "At Jehochman" text added. Keep comments in your own section please! [[User talk:AGK|AGK]] 20:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)</small><br />'''Comment''' Disagree. Too many good users are wasting too much time on tendentious mediocrity like this. The user has used his allotted community time for this trying (in good faith I'm sure) to decrease the quality of an article, leaving absurd angry messages with accusations of vandalism and threats [to file this] after one revert, and then to file an arbcom case itself without ever posting [under that name] on a talk page. Ridiculous, and it's actually, after your own words, "pussiness" in the respectable part of the community which allows this nonsense to take place. They can be good-faithed or trollish behind a block without bothering anyone else. [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 18:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==== Statement by [[user:angusmclellan]] ==== |
|||
Unless the committee is minded to rule on whether [[Bernard Burke]]'s ''A Genealogical History of the Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited, and Extinct Peerages of the British Empire'' (ca. 1866) is to be considered a [[WP:RS|reliable source]], and to be preferred over the ''[[Oxford Dictionary of National Biography]]'', there's not much to be done here. This'll be a content dispute. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 12:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==== Statement by [[user:Scott MacDonald]] ==== |
|||
Hm, prior to filing this case, the user had never posted any comments to the talk page of the article concerned. I'm calling for a speedy close here.--[[User:Scott MacDonald|Scott MacDonald]] ([[User talk:Scott MacDonald|talk]]) 12:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
@Newyorkbrad. When the sources conflict one needs also to look at how recent they are. On an article on the shape of the earth, it is not neccessarily to treat different theories as a "conflict of sources to be recorded" if all the sources for one view date prior to 1492.--[[User:Scott MacDonald|Scott MacDonald]] ([[User talk:Scott MacDonald|talk]]) 00:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==== Statement by [[user:Gazimoff|Gazimoff]] ==== |
|||
Firstly, being an administrator does not make one immune from other dispute resolution procedures. Other mechanisms such as requesting a third opinion, mediation, a Wikiquette alert or possibly even opening a request for comment would have been more suitable than opening a request for arbitration. As stated on the RfAr page, a request for arbitration is the last step in the process when all others have failed. That statement counts equally for all editors, including those who carry out administrative duties. |
|||
Seccondly, this appears to be primarily a content dispute, particularly the introduction of material from disputed sources. It may be more appropriate to discuss the problematic source on the Reliable Sources noticeboard, or with the support of a relevant Wikiproject, in order to resolve the content issue. Edit warring or reverting is not the optimal method of resolving these disputes, as it does not resolve the underlying issues. Many thanks, '''''<font color="green">[[User:Gazimoff|Gazi]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Gazimoff|moff]]</font>''''' 14:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==== Statement by [[user:Jehochman|Jehochman]] ==== |
|||
Lolling at people is not helpful. If they are a good faith user, it is [[m:Dick|dickish]], and if they are a troll, it [[WP:DFTT|encourages]] them. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 20:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: The key to controlling disruption is to be perfectly polite while doing what is necessary. If there is habitual disruption from a user, leave me the evidence and I will stop it, one way or another. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 11:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
====Comment from uninvolved Bishonen==== |
|||
'''RE statement by Adraeus.''' <br>Don't [[WP:BITE|bite]] the newbies.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=248392543&oldid=248390531] You've obviously upset poor young [[User:Scott MacDonald|Scott MacDonald]], shame on you. Be nice to the newbies! [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 21:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC). |
|||
==== Clerk notes ==== |
|||
''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.'' |
|||
*Some comments shuffled. Keep comments in your own section, please. [[User talk:AGK|AGK]] 20:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0) ==== |
|||
* Reject. Primarily a content dispute. Not ripe for arbitration since there is no evidence of entrenchment of editor views that are unresolvable through Community intervention. Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. Get the opinion of other users on the talk page or through a content RFC. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|♥♥♥]] 14:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* Decline per FloNight. As an observation on the content dispute for what it is worth, if there is a genuine division of opinion on a historical issue among [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] and bona fide scholars, then that should be reflected in the article. On the other hand, if an assertion is asserted by only one marginal source, then it would be [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] to overemphasize it. Which of these situations, if either, applies to this article is a matter to be decided by the editors involved, using content-related [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] if necessary. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 20:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* Reject. This is primarily a content dispute; however there does seem to have been a failure to assume good faith here. Editors should be extremely cautious about reverting changes and describing them as "vandalism" unless there is a good ground for determining that they are not good faith attempts to improve the article. As far as conflict of sources go, that is a complex matter. If a normally reliable source is clearly in error then it is often best to explain it in a footnote. Where there is a non-obvious error then it is sometimes clear which is the more reliable, and to give that precedence in the article but then to state the disagreement. Finally I would note that 19th century genealogical guides to the British Peerage are notorious for accepting legend and myth as genuine family history and including it in entries. [[User:Sam Blacketer|Sam Blacketer]] ([[User talk:Sam Blacketer|talk]]) 11:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* Reject - I agree with Sam here. I've been surprised myself in this area, how faulty printed sources can be. At most the older claims are probably worth a footnote, unless (it's a big ''unless'') there is really an active controversy outside the wiki about the facts. [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] ([[User talk:Charles Matthews|talk]]) 17:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
---- |
||
Revision as of 05:27, 7 November 2008
- WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:RfA Review (WP:RREV).
A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. 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
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wikipediocracy-related conduct | 21 October 2024 | 4/3/2 | |
| Marine 69-71 | Motions | 26 October 2024 | 0/0/0 |
| Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area | 6 November 2024 | 0/0/0 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) | Motion | (orig. case) | 17 August 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Current requests
Initiated by Twoggle (talk) at 04:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Involved parties
* twoggle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party * ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`
- Scienceapologist[1]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Formal Mediation Request (See Response to Case)
- Mediation Cabal (See Response to Case).
- Request to discuss at end of this section
- Numerous requests to discuss before deleting large sections of article -- See my revert comments
- Prior attempts with discussing massive removal/POVing of article without discussion with Editors who participated in previous consensus.
- Additional prior attempts with discussing massive removal/POVing of article without discussion with Editors who participated in previous consensus
Statement by {Party 1}
On October 31, 2008, the existing consensus Aspartame_controversy article was largely replaced with a extremely POV version, without any discussion, in numerous edits by Scienceapologist[2]. [3][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15].
I reverting a few of these edits with pleas to discuss to discuss prior to replacing a consensus article: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] (see my comment in this section).
Requsts to discuss were met with Edit Warring rather than any attempt to discuss: [21] [22].
When attempts at discussion were ignored, I pursued mediation. Informal and Formal Mediation requests were met with both unwillingness to mediate and inappropriate editorializing on the Mediation page. Formal Mediation Request (See Response to Case) Mediation Cabal (See Response to Case).
Several pillars/rules of Wikipedia were ignored, including WP:Consensus, WP:NPOV, WP:Civility, :WP:Disruptive_editing, etc. Of particular concern is that some of the edits: [23] were made with a claim of WP:Fringe and WP:Undue while at the same time, there was an attemped take-over of the WP:Fringe guideline by Scienceapologist[24] and others in a way that the existing Aspartame_controversy WP:NPOV WP:Consensus could somehow be declared WP:Fringe. Please note the significant WP:Fringe rewrite without discussion attempts: [25] [26] [27] [28] and repeated Edit Warning reverts: [29] [30] [31] despite a large number of requests for discussion first. Also please note the significant removal of text related to WP:NPOV and that all significant viewpoints should be represented fairly and without bias.
Scienceapologist[32] finally got a 30-Day ban related to edit warring of the WP:Fringe page: [33].
Attempts were made to force the change and/or start with a version after the non-discussed changes: [34].
Followed by incivility: [35].
Removal of ban notice from Talk page: [36].
Once the single page ban came into effect, the page of the Admin who set the temporary ban came under attack: [37] (see large and major edits by Scienceapologist[38]) which could give the appearance of retribution.
My point is that the WP:NPOV and previous WP:Consensus of the Aspartame_controversy page has been gutted by repeated and eventually successful attempts at massive deletions of one side of the controversy. Attempts at discussion of individual issues and mediation were met with calls for my own banning! When a page about a controversy is taken over by a small group intent on not following Wikipedia WP:Consensus, WP:NPOV guidelines, it seems to lead to an extremely biased and as is the case now numerous factual inaccuracies. In it's current form, after the gutting of much of scientific discussion and peer-reviewed references on one side of the issue, there are now appeals to personal websites and a made up, potentially libelous and unreferenced story about an alleged activist.
While the Arbitration Committee may not deal with specific article content, I think it is the lack of following Wikipedia Guidelines and respect for other Editors that leads to articles which can reflect very poorly upon Wikipedia as well as destroy the desire of knowledgable Editors to participate.
I have not quite lost hope for WP:NPOV and WP:Consensus on Wikipedia. Therefore, I am requesting that you consider one of the following solutions (but am open to others): 1) Start with the prior consensus (pre-October 26, 2008) and have formal mediation to discuss each concern/issue so that alternative text or references could be discussed to reach a consensus. 2) Split the Aspartame_controversy piece into two separate articles so that each side can be presently fairly. While I would have liked to edit both sides of the issue since I know all of the research and some of the scientists on both sides of the issue, I would avoid pro-aspartame edits if the they did the same to the anti-aspartame group. I do not prefer this idea, but whatever helps produce WP:NPOV results is better than nothing. 3) Freeze the pre-October 26, 2008 consensus article get back to the Arbitration Committee with results of Formal or Informal Mediation to see if further action needs to be taken.
Much more detail as well as defense of claims made against me for requesting mediation (e.g., [[Wikipedia:SPA], WP:OWN, etc.) will be provided on the Evidence page.
Cordially, Twoggle (talk) 04:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Statement by ScienceApologist
Content dispute at Aspartame controversy and therefore outside the purview of the arbitration committee. Consensus has gone against this particular user, who apparently thinks that because they think that aspartame is dangerous, Wikipedia should give equal weight to their opinion. The user outlines a number of conflicts totally unrelated to this issue, perhaps in the hope of getting their preferred content restored.
ScienceApologist (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Clerk notes
This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)
*
Clarifications and other requests
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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wikipediocracy-related conduct | 21 October 2024 | 4/3/2 | |
| Marine 69-71 | Motions | 26 October 2024 | 0/0/0 |
| Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area | 6 November 2024 | 0/0/0 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) | Motion | (orig. case) | 17 August 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.