Revision as of 18:02, 5 June 2009 view sourceTiptoety (talk | contribs)47,300 edits →Allegations of administrator misconduct: Rejected← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:20, 5 June 2009 view source Tiptoety (talk | contribs)47,300 edits →Intel Corp - Butterfly Effect of Lawsuits: Rejected - please try other steps in dispute resolutionNext edit → | ||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:''None currently'' | |||
== Intel Corp - Butterfly Effect of Lawsuits == | |||
'''Initiated by --] (]) 03:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)''' ] (]) '''at''' 01:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
=== Involved parties === | |||
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> | |||
*{{userlinks|68.111.167.64}}, ''filing party'' | |||
*{{userlinks|Aboutmovies}} | |||
*{{userlinks|Bigger digger}} | |||
;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. --> | |||
http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Aboutmovies#Party_at_ArbCom<br /> | |||
http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Bigger_digger#Party_at_ArbCom | |||
;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration --> | |||
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Intel_Corporation#History_of_crippling_competitors_with_legal_bills | |||
<br />(notice there are 3 sections to this dispute, each labeled part 1, 2, and 3. Sections 2 and 3 contain the bulk of the debate about this particular line, but you can read section 1 for the building up to it, if you want) | |||
<br />Third opinion: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Third_opinion&oldid=288210719 | |||
Note by "68.111.167.64": Pretty sure hawks of the Intel article gave the third opinion, because I warned them of it long before I requested it, and could make no logical sense of their reasoning. | |||
=== Statement by 68.111.167.64 === | |||
The last line (bold) in the following paragraph is being disputed: "During the time of the 386 ], Intel partook in suing companies that tried to develop chips that competed with the 386.<ref>"Bill Gates Speaks", page 29. ISBN 0471401692, ISBN 9780471401698</ref> The lawsuits were noted to significantly hamper or even cripple the competition with legal bills, even if Intel lost the suits.<ref>"Bill Gates Speaks", page 29. ISBN 0471401692, ISBN 9780471401698</ref> '''It is unknown how the technology market of today would be structured exactly if those competing chip companies had survived beyond Intel's lawsuits.'''"<br /> | |||
The only issue is that I can't cite this last line, but, as carefully explained in the discussion, it's not a "true or false" claim; it's just a call-to-insight on the naturally consequent SUM of what the reader already assumes, and NOBODY even challenges that. They say they just want it verifiable, for reasons unknown. (and it's impossible to find a source for something like this) I speculate (just speculate) that they are Intel investors, since they attack the line without an accusation of misinformation: it's just a blank, completely unexplained attack where they won't say WHY they don't like it (they even admit they don't challenge the line's message), which ''I'' say is evidence that 1) the line is not even subjective or open to debate about its message, and 2) the editors aren't to be considered valid "objectors", because their motives are unexplained and secret (they say it's just because "we don't know, because nobody has cited it". But I think the line's message, while obviously true to the core, is also crucially important for the reader to have in mind, for insight behind the ''entire shaping of today's technology world''. Thus it's FAR from trivial, and yet too simple (and unchallenged in its message) to need citation. That, and it's not a "claim". It's a call-to-insight on what you already assume. | |||
=== Statement by Aboutmovies === | |||
This is basically a case where the above IP editor inserted text that does not pass policies/guidelines and they have been told this by myself, and through three other editors that came via the 3rd opinion requested by the IP editor. There really is no dispute, its just one person railing against the Misplaced Pages machine who is forum shopping until they get the result they want. This is not ArbCom material, and at the most it calls for an RFC, but all is really a waste of time as the community is clearly against the text in the form it is presented. ] (]) 06:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by Bigger digger === | |||
This is a content dispute that doesn't need the attention of ArbCom. I offered the ], having taken it from the project page . It was the third third opinion I had offered that day and I reject the accusation that I might be a hawk, it would be nice if the IP editor could ] in those who disagree with him. I keep a and assumed this issue was finished as consensus was quite clear. | |||
Finally, insufficient steps in the process of ] have been taken. Discussion on the talk page, request a third opinion and then an ArbCom case is too much too soon. I will suggest to the IP editor that they go to ]. ] (]) 09:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
=== Clerk notes === | |||
:''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.'' | |||
:There's clearly no way this is being accepted at this point; I'd leave it up for a day or two so all parties are aware, but then archive it. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 03:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/9/0/0) === | |||
*'''Decline'''. This is an editorial discussion. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 05:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
*'''Decline'''. per preceding. ] (] '''·''' ]) 05:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
*'''Decline'''. Content issue, steps in DR issue not exhausted <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 09:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
*'''Decline'''; this is a "clean" content dispute at this time. — ] <sup>]</sup> 10:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
*'''Decline'''. Getting opinions and advice from other users will help. Follow the suggestions for settling ] such as a or . ]] 10:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
*'''Decline''' per others. As a general comment (not really in my capacity as arbitrator), I think the consensus is right that statements along the lines of "we don't know what would have happened if ..." are simultaneously too generic and too speculative to include in most contexts. That sort of comment could be made about virtually any historical event, for example. But ultimately, as indicated, this is a matter for consensus among editors on an article, assisted by earlier steps in the dispute resolution process if needed. ] (]) 14:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
*'''Decline'''. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
*'''Decline'''. ] 21:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
*'''Decline'''. --] (]) 00:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:20, 5 June 2009
Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open casesCase name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
---|---|---|---|
Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motionsMotion name | Date posted |
---|---|
Arbitrator workflow motions | 10 January 2025 |
Requests for arbitration
Shortcuts
About this page 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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
- None currently