Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case
Requests for arbitration
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amhara people | 17 January 2017 | 0/8/0 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
Amhara people
Initiated by GabiloveAdol (talk) at 03:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Involved parties
- GabiloveAdol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Ms Sarah Welch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- EthiopianHabesha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Soupforone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
See statement/time sensitivity GabiloveAdol (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Statement by GabiloveAdol
If you look at the page of October 23 2016 of the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Amhara_people&diff=745887231&oldid=744666745 versus latest revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Amhara_people&diff=759866613&oldid=759833452 You will see that the history section has been gutted in halve and that two new sections: 'Slavery' and 'Social stratification' had been added among other.
Ms Sarah Welch Has added both sections. On October 27 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Amhara_people&diff=746386729&oldid=746379295 She first named it Slavery and Caste Then the title was changed to Social Stratification by Soupforone: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Amhara_people&diff=746387935&oldid=746387072
On October 27 2016 i removed the 'Social Stratification' section when i was an ip, didn't knew how it worked, but i could just read the bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Amhara_people&diff=746491137&oldid=746398243 didn't engage regarding the edits till january of this year.
On January 8 & 9 2017 i engaged Ms Sarah Welch on the Amhara people talk page source by source On January 9 2017 in those same discussions,Soupforone found out that the Amhara has not been mentioned in the source provided by Ms Sarah Welch : https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amhara_people&diff=759086281&oldid=759086195
Same day Ms Sarah Welch https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amhara_people&diff=759126649&oldid=759124880 lashed out and lied and then added a second line of text saying it was mutiple peer scholarly reviewed https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amhara_people&diff=759143441&oldid=759126649
Then Ms Sarah Welch got caught redhanded again by using Donald Levine and passing it for the Herbert Lewis source which she earlier staunchly defended. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amhara_people&diff=759168486&oldid=759143441
Then she went on a editing spree:
On january 9 2017 Ms Sarah Welch added a text in the history section which also contained sentence in a present context, and talking about a census of a group, talking about reducing reading quality of the page https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Amhara_people&diff=759213260&oldid=759208010
On January 10 2017 Ms Sarah Welch added Slavery section https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Amhara_people&diff=759307455&oldid=759257638 when social stratification(previously Slavery and Caste) just wasn't enough.
On January 13 2017 EthiopianHabesha had a proposal https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amhara_people&diff=759831546&oldid=759800549 in which i agreed to moving the sections to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Ethiopia instead of opening similar sections in other ethnic groups, https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amhara_people&diff=759882870&oldid=759831546
Ms Sarah Welch is the only one opposed https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amhara_people&diff=759919460&oldid=759894107
I skipped the prior dispute resolution because of the time sensitivity which i'm happily to elaborate further, it has to do with upcoming protest, awareness, information war and human rights. People relying on wikipedia to know more about the Amhara people could get the wrong or unbalanced impression/information, reading the article as it now is. I also emailed the Oversight team because the page is defamatory to a group, the previous history page has been gutted, and now two thirds of the history section is about 'Slavery' and 'Social stratification'. it's no longer neutral and it's misrepresenting a group of people which recently captured headlines!
Sincerely GabiloveAdol (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your response Euryalus I posted here, not because of WP:BLPGROUP but because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Libel policy to remove libelous material which doesn't adhere to neutrality, and all information referenced through the citations of reliable published sources, above i gave you an example why assumption of good faith can't be continued regarding to the page. I emailed with 'LFaraone' and then got referenced by 'Beeblebrox' from 'The 'English Oversight team'. Shame i didn't get the opportunity to make my case. GabiloveAdol (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Euryalus Thanks i will, got also help from Harry Mitchell from the Oversight team and he said i have to fill out form regarding supression, sorry for the trouble Cas Liber Okay, thanks anyway. GabiloveAdol (talk) 08:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Ms Sarah Welch
Related case: AN/I.
1. The section cites reliable scholarly sources published by some of the most cited professors in Ethiopian studies. Each and every cite quotes exact excerpts from the source (but only to "fair use" extent, avoiding copyvio; interested reviewers are urged to read the context in pages leading to those quotes to properly WP:V). The wording and language in the section is, in significant part, not mine but the result of another editor named Soupforone. I would word that section differently, trim it a bit and expand something else. But I don't own any wiki article, and I have left the section in the form edited by the other editor because it too summarizes the sources.
2. The filing party's edit summary, at least in October 2016 as 86.89.46.70, was, "I'm removing this section because it's biased and clearly inflamiatory [sic], it's being recently added to cause division!!!"
3. This case should be rejected as AR/C should not be the first stop for disputes, or content policy misunderstandings.
4. I strongly endorse Robert McClenon's request to the ARB committee: consider adding Horn of Africa (Somalia/Ethiopia/etc) to AC/DS. It is a high conflict zone. My endorsement is based on my review of many talk pages of the articles in this space, and a review of their edit history over last many months when I helped to improve about 75 Africa articles under Africa Destubathon initiative. Our Horn of Africa articles are conflict prone, the content suffering from systemic bias. Our articles in this space are not neutral with respect to the RS, most do not reflect the mainstream and significant minority viewpoints in RS.
Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Statement by EthiopianHabesha
Statement by Soupforone
Statement by BU Rob13
There has to be a better way to decline obviously improper requests like these without requiring the attention of half the arbs. How about a motion allowing a case request to be speedily declined if well outside what any arbitrator would reasonably consider accepting? Say by agreement of two arbs to speedy decline, but can be reopened if any one arb objects to the speedy decline. ~ Rob13Talk 16:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Statement by User:Robert McClenon
While I agree that the ArbCom should decline this case, this case isn’t as obviously out-of-line as it appears to be. I would suggest that the ArbCom should briefly consider whether to accept this case, and then decline it, rather than to just decline it, for the following reason. (I respectfully disagree with BU Rob 13 as to this being an “obviously improper request”.) There are several areas of battleground editing in Wikipedia that correspond to regions on the Earth that have been historically real battlegrounds, such as the Jordan valley (which may be accursed because it is holy), the India-Pakistan border, the Balkans (origin of a conflict a hundred years ago that killed fifteen million), and a few others. The ArbCom has repeatedly had to impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions on these areas. The nitrate-rich soil of the Atacama Desert, subject of an old war and a current case, may be another. It appears that the Horn of Africa is another such area. (Every time that I have tried to provide a third opinion or informal mediation with regard to this area, good-faith efforts have failed due to bad blood.) While this particular case should be settled as a content dispute, the ArbCom should be aware that it may in the future be necessary or at least useful to impose discretionary sanctions on the Horn of Africa. First, I agree that the ArbCom should decline this case. However, second, the ArbCom should be ready to extend discretionary sanctions to the Horn of Africa. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Statement by (uninvolved) ThePlatypusofDoom
Decline this case. It's a content dispute, and considering that there haven't been other methods of dispute resolution, it's an obvious decline. As BU Rob13 said, ArbCom needs a faster way of dealing with good-faith requests that are obviously not going to become a case. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Statement by {Non-party}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Amhara people: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
- Decline - this is a content dispute, and you should continue to seek to resolve it on the article talkpage. For example, you offered this suggestion a few days ago, which seems a good-faith proposal to resolve your concern. No one has commented on your suggestion yet - you may wish to consider opening a request for comment instead. If you have a dispute over the quality of sources, your first stop should be this noticeboard. If you have a concern over another editor's conduct, the first stop is probably WP:ANI. All the best with resolving the dispute, but there's nothing here requiring Arbcom intervention at this stage. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, one further point: WP:BLPGROUP can be relevant to groups of people that are so small that individuals could reasonably be identified within it. It does not meaningfully apply to entire ethnic groupings or nationalities. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- The quickest way to get the attention of the oversight team is to email them directly at oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org. If there's something specific that needs oversighting, please do email the team and let them know. Doing that is independent of any outcomes from this case request. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Decline - for the reasons outlined by Euryalus above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Decline also per Euryalus. ArbCom is a last resort, and many avenues for dispute resolution have not been tried yet. RfCs are the first. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Decline as an arbitration case, per other comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Procedural Decline as little to no other means of resolution have been attempted. Mkdw talk 19:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Decline per Euryalus. This request is aiming for the right things, but in the wrong place; there are still lots of options available to help settle the issue without the bureaucracy of an arbcom case. BTW, BU Rob13, We do just remove obviously frivolous requests, but not generally requests that are in good faith but reflect a misunderstanding of the process. Also, it doesn't require half the arbs, just "net four" (whatever you may think of that rule). Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Decline as above. DGG ( talk ) 21:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Decline per Euryalus. Keilana (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)