Revision as of 03:51, 6 July 2014 view sourceTimotheus Canens (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators38,430 edits →BLP issue: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter: d← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:07, 7 July 2014 view source Lord Roem (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators10,811 edits removing request for arbitration, declined by the CommitteeNext edit → | ||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}} | <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}} | ||
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}} | ||
== BLP issue == | |||
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 04:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
=== Involved parties === | |||
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> | |||
*{{userlinks|Ted87}}, ''filing party'' | |||
*{{userlinks|Difronzischeme}} | |||
*{{userlinks|184.20.208.37}} | |||
<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. --> | |||
;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. --> | |||
* | |||
* | |||
;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 --> | |||
* | |||
* | |||
=== Statement by ] === | |||
{{userlinks|Difronzischeme}} added ] to the ] page on June 24. I reverted it explaining that there were no sources for the info and had to be removed immediately since it dealt with living people and had no real sources. Then anon user {{userlinks|184.20.208.37}} started re-adding the same info despite me repeatedly sayin it is inapporpriate without sources. I assume this is just a sock puppet of Difronzischeme. The anon's shows that his only edits were adding this same info the the Chicago Outfit and ] page. I warned him on his talk page and explained by why I reverted his edits each time, but he continues to do it. --] (]) 04:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by outside editor ] === | |||
As one of the arbitrators has noted, there hasn't been any attempt to discuss on the article talk page. <del> Also, this case request is misnamed. The title refers to a BLP issue, but this is an article about a criminal syndicate that operated in the 1920s and 1930s, and it is probable that all of the participants in this gang have died. I suggest that the original poster read ]. </del> ] (]) 15:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
There continue to be unsourced identifications of living persons as members of the gang. ] (]) 20:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by outside editor ] === | |||
{{u|Robert McClenon}} although the outfit was most active and well known in the 20s/30s, the content added is indeed about a living person alleged to be the current living head of the outfit. Its not Arb worthy, but it is a BLP. ] (]) 19:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by {Party 3} === | |||
=== Clerk notes === | |||
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
=== BLP issue: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/9/0/0> === | |||
{{anchor|1=BLP issue: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small> | |||
*Arbitration should be the last step in the dispute resolution process and there's a few steps that appear to have been missed, including basic discussion on the talk page - a place I see you've never editted, Ted87? At the moment, this appears to be primarily a content dispute, so I'd '''decline'''. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 08:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
*'''Decline''' as obviously not ripe for arbitration. This is a minor content dispute that began barely a week ago. The links to previous attempts at dispute resolution show no such thing, and indeed lead me to question if the filing party is even aware of what ] is as they clearly have not tried in any meaningful way to discuss these issues before coming here. ] (]) 17:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
*'''Decline''', arbitration is the last resort for when community processes can't work for an intractable dispute. They haven't even been tried here. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
*'''Decline'''. I agree with my colleagues: the community are perfectly capable of dealing with this dispute. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 18:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
*'''Decline''', of course, as this can be easily solved by <s>the community</s> any admin who sees this, and arbitration is not needed. But I'd also note that Ted87 is obviously in the right wrt the underlying content and <s>sock</s> editing while logged out issues, and it is, indeed, a BLP issue, so references to ] aren't appropriate. --] (]) 19:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
*'''Decline''' Plenty of other untried dispute resolution methods exist. (namely, please discuss it on the talk page) '']'' <sup>]</sup> 17:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
*'''Decline''' Patently out of scope. ''']<font color="darkgreen">]</font>''' 17:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
*'''Decline''' Per my colleagues, this does not require arbitration at this point. ] <small>]</small> 04:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
*'''Decline'''. ] (]) 03:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:07, 7 July 2014
Requests for arbitration
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 |
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
|