Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions
Fred Bauder (talk | contribs) |
Safavids - '''Rejected'''; Liberal Party of Australia -- '''Rejected''' |
||
Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
* Reject. As Grunt [[User:Sannse|sannse]] [[User talk:Sannse|(talk)]] 21:10, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
* Reject. As Grunt [[User:Sannse|sannse]] [[User talk:Sannse|(talk)]] 21:10, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
||
* Makes no sense to make two requests. Your request has been rejected for now, please look at [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] and attempt to edit in that way [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 22:04, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC) |
* Makes no sense to make two requests. Your request has been rejected for now, please look at [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] and attempt to edit in that way [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 22:04, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC) |
||
=== [[Liberal Party of Australia]] === |
|||
Discussion about the platform of this specific type of government has met with little results. The page blatantly provides misleading information. |
|||
'''My complaints and claims:''' |
|||
The Liberal Party of Australia is not [[neoliberal]] but [[conservative]]. However, the user [[Xtra]] has refused to listen to reason, despite facts backing up each claim? |
|||
References and citations have confirmed this conservative standing. However, attempts to get this innaccurate and false information corrected has been met with ridicule and partisan replies. I also object to the fact that the person running the page does in fact work for the very organisation he is defending. How can that be neutral? How can this page continue to provide false information? And how can he possibly be trusted to show partiality? |
|||
==== Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/7/0/0) ==== |
|||
*Reject. Please pursue earlier avenues of [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] first. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 05:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
|||
*Reject. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 06:47, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
* Reject — we don't arbitrate content [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt]] 13:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
|||
*Reject [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (The snott rake)]] 16:32, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
|||
*Reject. This page is not the first port of call. - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 17:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
|||
*Reject as above; in addition, no ruling is usually necessary when one of the disputants is an anonymous user. -- [[User:Grunt|Grun]][[User talk:Grunt|t]] [[European Union|{{User:Grunt/euflag}}]] 20:10, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC) |
|||
* Reject, please consult [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] and attempt to follow that policy, fairly including both points of view with appropriate references [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 22:09, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
====Response from Xtra==== |
|||
This anonomous user not only bases many of his arguments on the [[Talk:Liberal Party of Australia|Liberal talk page]] on falicies, but he doesn't understand the meaning of neoliberal. Editors of the page from both sides of Australian politics have tried to point this out, yet to no avail. This editor is participating in blatant trolling and threats. see [[User talk:210.50.249.123]]. In addition, the anonomous user has not even attempted to come to a compromise or take any earlier steps before arbitration. Also, in contrast to what the anonomous user has said, I do not work for the Liberal Party. [[User:Xtra|Xtra]] 04:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
|||
====Response from User 210.50.249.123 ==== |
|||
User has completely fabricated his position. How can a person who strongly supports the same political party he is defending be anything less than partisan? Not to mention in his beliefs section he blatantly defies [[separartion of church and state]] laws which indicate conservative politics consistent with the ideologies of the party he so claims is neoliberal. |
|||
The definition of neoliberal pupports that "A political movement beginning in the 1960s that blends traditional liberal concerns for social justice with an emphasis on economic growth" [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=neoliberal [link]]:. The actions of the Liberal party (which I have linked to see [[Talk:Liberal Party of Australia]) oppose this notion of "social justice" and instead prefer social conservatism and therefore do not represnt neoliberal policies (by definition). |
|||
These "people" from both political spectrum are frieds and fellow admins of Xtra, and therefore also canot be completely impartial. |
|||
=== [[Safavids]] === |
|||
Discussion about the origins of the Safavid dynasty of Iran (1501-1736) turned into a fruitless dispute and revert war between me ([[User:Tabib|Tabib]]) and user "[[User:Pantherarosa|Pantherarosa]]". I contend that Safavids were Turkic-speaking whereas "Pantherarosa" argues that they were of Kurdish/Persian origin. |
|||
'''My complaints and claims:''' |
|||
* Pantherarosa repeatedly tried to falsify and misinterpret the historical facts and stubbornly refused to accept the facts cited in authoritative Western and even Iranian academic (as well as online) sources. |
|||
:The fact that '''Safavids were Turkic-speaking should be spelled out clearly in the relevant Wikipedia article(s)'''. |
|||
* Pantherarosa deliberately reverted my editions aimed at widening and improving the text, and even accused me in copyright violations without no ground for that. |
|||
: Pantherarosa '''should stop reverting my editions and deleting pictures''' which I rightfully placed in the Safavids page. |
|||
Please, see [[Talk:Safavids|Safavids talk page]] for further details. |
|||
--[[User:Tabib|Tabib]] 13:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==== Comments and votes by Arbitrators (1/7/0/0) ==== |
|||
*Reject. Please pursue earlier stages of the [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution process]]. The arbitration committee only deals with user disputes, not content disputes. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 13:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
|||
*reject as Ambi -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]] [[User talk:Sannse|(talk)]] 13:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
|||
*Reject as above. -- [[User:Grunt|Grun]][[User talk:Grunt|t]] [[European Union|{{User:Grunt/euflag}}]] 14:06, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC) |
|||
*Accept for consideration of NPOV questions [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 15:31, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
*Reject. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 16:46, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
*Reject for now - try the earlier steps, try harder to find third party opinions - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 20:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
|||
* Reject [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt]] 13:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
|||
*Reject for now. I second David's advice [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (The snott rake)]] 16:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Matters currently in Arbitration == |
== Matters currently in Arbitration == |
Revision as of 22:23, 10 February 2005
| ||||
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration. [edit]
Open cases [edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases) No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases). Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
|
The last step of dispute resolution is a request for arbitration. Please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.
- Arbitration policy
- Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
- Developer help needed
- Standing orders
- Arbitration template
Structure of this page
The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. Important points:
- Be brief. Put a quick list of the nature of the complaints. Link to detailed evidence in the standard /Template format elsewhere if you need to.
- You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.
- Please sign and date at least your original submission with "~~~~."
- New requests to the top, please.
The numbers in the Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/0/0/0) section corresponds to accept/reject/recuse/other.
New requests
When adding new requests, please give them an appropriate title as well as a subsection for arbitrator's votes.
Added a new request, Requests_for_arbitration/Dbachmann Complaints and evidences listed on the given page. antifinnugor 20:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/2/0/0)
- Reject; we have already dealt with the dispute surrounding this edit war. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:28, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
- Reject, please comply with the decision at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Antifinnugor Fred Bauder 21:48, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
I would like to make a formal complaint against Rubenstein banning me just because of who my friends are
Tigermoon 17:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/1/1/0)
- Reject; please be more specific and detailed in your complaint. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:25, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
- Recuse, I have recused myself at your request, please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams Fred Bauder 21:57, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Safavids New Situation
The editor TABIB, seeking arbitration is apparently rigging postings!! He is teaming up with "buddies" and apparently tries to enforce POV, in cahouts with them and possible sock-puppets! Himself a case for the Arbitration Comitee? His "contributioins Page" reveals it all.
Please, see Safavids talk page for further details.--LIGerasimova 09:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/2/0/1)
- Reject. No evidence provided, either of conflict or of previous dispute resolution. Please try other avenues before attempting to bring this straight to the arbcom. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:58, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
- Reject. As Grunt sannse (talk) 21:10, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Makes no sense to make two requests. Your request has been rejected for now, please look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and attempt to edit in that way Fred Bauder 22:04, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Matters currently in Arbitration
- /Robert the Bruce - Accepted with five votes and one recusal on 28 January 2005. Evidence to /Robert the Bruce/Evidence, please.
- /Lyndon LaRouche Part Deux - Accepted with four votes and one recusal on 25 January 2005. Evidence to /Lyndon LaRouche Part Deux/Evidence, please.
Please also see Template:ArbComCases.