| Revision as of 17:47, 1 December 2024 editUpd Edit (talk | contribs)381 edits →Request for Administrator Review: Talk page← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 21:45, 9 January 2025 edit undoMalcolmxl5 (talk | contribs)Administrators149,241 edits →Thomas Partey: Thanks.Tag: Reply |
| (51 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|maxarchivesize = 30K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 30K |
|
|counter = 96 |
|
|counter = 97 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|algo = old(48h) |
|
|algo = old(48h) |
| Line 19: |
Line 19: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Block == |
|
== '']'' arbitration case opened == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Block with. All project ] (]) 11:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
You offered a statement in an arbitration enforcement referral. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at ]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at ]. '''Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ] ] 06:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* Sorry, I'm not sure what this means. ] 11:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
<!-- Message sent by User:SilverLocust@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Update_list&oldid=1260341982 --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Thomas Partey == |
|
== Request for Administrator Review == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can you have a look at the antics at ] please? The short story is that the police have been investigating allegations made about a Premier League player and a file has been passed to the CPS but neither have named the individual (and they can’t due to privacy rules regarding the identification of suspects) meaning any sources naming anyone are conjecture. We have a young editor persisting adding the accusations to the article and talk page who will not stop. They have a CTOP notification. — ] (]) 21:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
Hello, |
|
|
|
* {{u|Malcolmxl5}} Indefinitely blocked and every edit revision deleted. I've also semi-protected the article. Thanks, ] 21:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
I kindly request administrative review of the ongoing content dispute on the {{pagelinks|Shahi Jama Masjid}} article. This matter is particularly sensitive due to current incidents (]) surrounding the site, Which caused 5/6 deaths. |
|
|
|
*:Thanks. — ] (]) 21:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
The user {{userlinks|Upd Edit}} has made edits asserting that the mosque was built over a Hindu temple, citing certain historical books (not freely accessible) and Indian media sources. However, the reliability of these sources are questionable. Additionally the issue is further complicated by the following factors: |
|
|
*{{small|Hindu petitioners lack historical evidence to substantiate their claims and so they have demanded a 'survey' of the mosque.<ref>https://www.voanews.com/amp/india-s-top-court-weighs-in-on-mosque-temple-controversy/7882935.html</ref> This suggests that the citations provided by the user is not trustworthy.}}<br> |
|
|
*{{small|The applicability of the ] and ], which prohibits altering the character of places of worship.}} |
|
|
*{{small|The potential risk of misleading readers by including speculative pre-Islamic claims without proper verifiability.}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Moreover, the user {{userlinks|Upd Edit}} appears to be acting intentionally disruptive, as their contributions are solely focused on this article. Despite multiple reverts by other editors, they continue to persist, causing significant disruption.<br>1. <br> |
|
|
2. <br> |
|
|
3. <br> |
|
|
4. <br> |
|
|
5. … |
|
|
|
|
|
While attempting to preserve the article’s integrity, I inadvertently breached the ] rule.<br>It should also be noted that {{userlinks|Upd Edit}} reverted edits of ''4 individual users'' more than 5 times prior to this. |
|
|
|
|
|
Another user, {{userlinks|Kautilya3}}, has also been involved in the dispute. {{small|But, I have concerns about their neutrality due to the content on their userpage indicating their religious affiliation. This raises questions about potential bias in their approach.}} - (Personal opinion) |
|
|
|
|
|
Given the complexity and sensitivity of this matter, I believe administrative oversight is necessary to ensure neutrality and adherence to Misplaced Pages's policies. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your insights. '''- ] • ]''' 15:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Till a day ago, your user page your name to be "Abrar", a . Let's say that it would have been bigoted of me to claim that you are biased because you are ... |
|
|
:All the books that I cited are available online and at Libgen / IA. If you feel that my sources are unreliable (they are not), why not discuss at the talk page despite multiple requests (, , , and )? |
|
|
:Of the four editors, ] (per their own admission) and Jannatulbaqi (again, per their own admission). That leaves two: you and another editor who never showed up at the talk-page like you. |
|
|
:On an aside, Indian legislation does not determine how our articles are written; Misplaced Pages policies do. If you believe that the claims in the article are unverifiable or not supported by reliable sources, you are free to discuss at the talk-page. ] (]) 16:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
