Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:02, 1 January 2012 view sourceArcticocean (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators46,324 edits Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/2): Decline← Previous edit Revision as of 05:07, 2 January 2012 view source NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators83,665 edits Greyhood and Putin: declinedNext edit →
Line 3: Line 3:
<br clear="all"/> <br clear="all"/>
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}} {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}}


== Greyhood and Putin ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 07:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
*], ''filing party''
*]

;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. -->
*Greyhood

;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
* of a section at ] by Greyhood
*
*
*
* (note the statement by BorisG)

=== Statement by Gritzko ===

I see a repeated pattern of tendentious editing by Greyhood in everything that is somehow related to Vladimir Putin. In ] he fought to avoid mentioning the "crooks and thieves" story. In ] Greyhood has shown his remarkable persistence in fighting the sentence "However, recent events and polls show that popularity of Putin is on the decline". Now, when Russia has biggest protests since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the fact is kind of obvious, but a month ago Greyhood argued everybody to death, trying to spin obvious facts (e.g. , also at the talk page).
Now, Greyhood does weird things at ]. Namely, he cited a blog of a critic. Later, the critic dismissed his claims and corrected his blog post. So, Greyhood removed a link to the original blog and left a link to a short story referring to the uncorrected version of that blog post! After I , Greyhood started to speculate that the entire section should be removed.
My understanding is that he is willfully and skillfully spinning articles in favor of V. Putin who is likely his idol or something.
In either case, I think that Greyhood should be banned from any article that has any relation to V. Putin, including ], ] ] and suchlike.
: Regarding RfC. Check the talk at V. Putin and you will see that third parties don't make any difference. Greyhood keeps arguing and arguing even if everything is clear to everybody. My favorite quote from the guy is: "Media like The Econonmist and The Guardian tend to give excessive attention to actions of the marginal Russian political opposition with dismal ratings." That's how to easily dismiss all the media and all the opposition in one sentence. ] (]) 09:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

: By the way, Greyhood was on the exactly because of his activities in the very same article. Reported by Fred Bauder and Malick78, AFAIU. Also Swliv, Itinerant1 and Narking expressed their concerns at the talk page, N1 problem being unjustified deletions made by Greyhood.
: There is at the NPoV noticeboard as well. ] (]) 18:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by Greyhood ===
The problem here is essentialy minor content issues, which could easily be resolved on a talk page if all users involved would show more assumption of good faith, more civility and more sticking to Misplaced Pages policies.
*Our recent dispute with Gritzko, which , seems to have arisen because I have removed several ] blog sources from the article per ], and Gritzko doesn't like that. The self-published blogs by non-specialists and not censored by any editorial body is something that is too obviously not ].
*Gritzko is not entirely correct claiming that I cited a blog of a critic. Weeks ago, before Gritzko was involved, I used an editorial story from a PolitOnline site, which contained a wrapped link to a self-published study, but since the link was wrapped I didn't notice the self-publication. Finer points of that study were reported in the PolitOnline story alongside an expert opinion from a specialist (see the second and third pragraphs at the ]) and just one line was inserted by me based on a material from a wrapped link rather than from PolitOnline. As soon as ] pointed it out to me at ] that the link was wrapped and not related to PolitOnline, I removed it with the content related to that link.
*So Gritzko is totally incorrect when he claims that I removed the link to the blog post because that post was changed. I was not aware of any changes at the point of the removal of the link.
*Furthermore, Gritzko is incorrect when he says "the critic dismissed his claims and corrected his blog post". The "critic" just made an addition to his study discussing the anomalies he could not explain, and tried to explain them applying certain hypothesis, specifying that it is not the only explanation possible. The "critic" didn't dismiss any claims that were published in the PolitOnline article.
*So all what I do is just trying to use better sources and prevent spamming Misplaced Pages with personal blogs' stuff.
*True, I suggested to remove the discussed section at all, because most of the material there is based on amateur studies, not reviewed scientifically and just republished by some media sources due to the popularity of the topic in the blogs. I do not insist on such a removal, that's just a proposal, but if we decide to consider the story notable and encyclopedic, than the proper usage of sources is something that me and most editors would insist on. In fact, my actions seem to be already supported or accepted by users other than Gritzko, who just should read ] and check the situation more closely before accusing other editors in something.
:As for our interaction with Gritzko on other articles, such as Putin etc., Gritzko has openly manifested his highly negative attitude towards Russian authorities and ruling politicians. For me personally, such his attitude is OK until he edits within Misplaced Pages rules and engages in constructive and civil discussion, putting the purpose of the encyclopedia above advocating his own political preferences. But unfortunately, Gritzko has shown a lot of incivility, unwillingness to discuss the policies and continuous bad faith assumptions, which is obviously problematic. Other users tried to address the issue at ], but seems Gritzko doesn't pay attention for the warning received. Seems like Gritzko is ready to assume bad faith in any user who does not share Gritzko's own highly negative attitude and is active in the articles related to Russian politics, and unfortunately Gritzko is too keen in accusing such users in having "idols", being "fanboys" etc. It is not easy to maintain serious and constructive discussion with a user who has such a negative attitude to the subject and other users. I suggest Gritzko to pay more respect to the encyclopedia and its collaborative environment. ] ] 22:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

=== statement by Russavia ===

this is purely a content dispute and has been noted below there has been no rfc or other such dispute resolution. However, it should be noted that i only last week had cause to file an ae request on gritzko, due to their continual engagement of personal attacks against greyhood, for which they received a digwuren warning. If one looks at the putin, elections and protesta articles and talk pages, one will see that gritzko is an occasional editor, but it is also abundantly clear that he is here to engage in advocacy and also does not assume good faith of other editors. I am making it clear now that if gritzko continues this behaviour i will file another ae request to have him topic banned under digwuren sanctions. Sorry for not linking any of the above as i am on my phone and it is quite impossible. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by Master&Expert ===
I've seen Greyhood around at ] and have gotten the impression that he does have something of a bias towards ]. That said, I'm not convinced anything he's doing is particularly harmful. But even if it were, the issue certainly isn't ripe for ArbCom. Virtually no dispute resolution methods have been tried prior to filing this case. I'd recommend they get a ] first, then if the issue remains, consider an RfC regarding the topic. ] (]) 05:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

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

=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/2) ===
* Awaiting statements, but this looks premature in that there has been no RfC held on the topic to invite outside community input into the dispute. ] (]) 08:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
** '''Decline''' as premature. ] (]) 21:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
* Similar to above, leaning decline, as no evidence of RfC etc. ] (] '''·''' ]) 08:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
*This looks like the front end of a content dispute, unless there's some really OTT behaviour in here somewhere. --] (]) 01:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' at this time. Please continue to work through the issues using the other forums that have been referred to. See also ] for other forums that may be available, short of arbitration which is a complicated, lengthy process that we save for a last resort. It appears to me that both editors are highly knowledgeable about the subject-matter of these articles. Despite what appear to be differing political or personal views about Russian politics, I hope they can both contribute usefully to our coverage, utilizing high-quality sources. ] (]) 17:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
* '''Decline''' in the hope this dispute can be resolved without arbitration, which is often a lengthy and contentious process. This doesn't imply your dispute is unimportant, merely that arbitration isn't the best way to resolve it. Suggest having a look at ] - there are several kinds of dispute resolution that could be useful. For the content side of the dispute, given the complexity of the issues, I would suggest the next stage is ], and if there are more serious problems you could try either a ] or ]. For the user conduct dispute, if there are relatively minor concerns you could try ], and if there are more serious conduct problems, I would suggest a ]. ] (]) 18:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' per my colleagues directly above. ] 02:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
* '''Decline.''' ] </nowiki>]] 14:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:07, 2 January 2012

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion 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.


File an arbitration request


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.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

  • This page is for statements, not discussion.
  • Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
  • Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
  • Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
  • After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
  • Declined case requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.