Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Disburbed: Asylum (Release Date)		27 August 2010	{{{votes}}}
Cabal: World War II article		23 August 2010	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Historical elections	13 Sep 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	Motion	(orig. case)	26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	8 September 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Disburbed: Asylum (Release Date)

Initiated by Jimv1983 (talk) at 06:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Jimv1983 (talk · contribs), filing party
• Bovineboy2008 (talk · contribs)
• IllaZilla (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Notice to IllaZilla
• Notice to Bovineboy2008

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asylum_(Disturbed_album)

Statement by Jimv1983 (talk · contribs)

The official release date for this album is Tuesday August 31st 2010. This is the official date as stated by the band on their official web site http://www.disturbed1.com. The main release date continues to change to August 30th and in one case August 27th. Those does are not official or verifiable and should be in the "Release History" section of the page. --Jimv1983 (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Bovineboy2008

I have no idea why this is here, nor have I been in an arbitration, so I apologize if I am not responding properly. The earliest date with a reliable source per WP:RS has been found to be August 27, but the American release date, the one on the official website, is the 31st. This is not the place to hack out this detail as other forms of conflict resolution have not been sought out. BOVINEBOY2008 14:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by IllaZilla

I'm relatively uninvolved, having never edited the article in question. I came across the issue when Jimv1983 (talk · contribs) made undiscussed alterations to Template:Infobox album/doc ([1], [2]) and traced his activity back to the album talk page where I see the problem originated. My comments on the matter can be seen at Talk:Asylum (Disturbed album)#Album release date. I did warn Jimv1983 with {{uw-3rr}} when I looked at the article's history and saw that the issue was devolving into an edit war between him, Bovineboy2008 (talk · contribs), and John Holmes II (talk · contribs). I'm not quite certain why we are here, as arbitration is a last resort and other avenues of dispute resolution have not been attempted. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

This request will be closed in the next 24 hours. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 19:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/7/0/0)

• Decline This is a content dispute (and a rather silly one at that) SirFozzie (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Decline; this is indeed a simple content dispute. — Coren ^(talk) 15:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Decline; Not only per above, but it will be released WELL BEFORE any arbcom decision could be made. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Decline per the last sentence of IllaZilla's comment. If this matter can't be resolved by consensus on the talkpage, I'll be Disturbed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Decline - Per SirFozzie. KnightLago (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Decline per above. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Decline. I would suggest ways to resolve this, but in this case it seems the dispute will be overtaken by events. Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Cabal: World War II article

Initiated by Communicat (talk) at 15:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Communicat (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), filing party
• Nick-D (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Notice to Nick-D

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Link 1
• Link 2

Statement by Communicat

Request for mediation was filed to Mediation Committee by Communicat on 21 August 2010.

On 23 August 2010, administrator/editor Nick-D, who had been identified in the mediation request as one of nine involved parties, posted a conjectural opinion at mediation request form before mediation committee had formally notified involved parties and/or invited involved parties to submit reasoned views. Said conjectural opinion allegedly has the effect of prejudicing / influencing decisions of other parties to agree or disagree to mediation. Said conjectural opinion appears to be attempt at cabal-building. Jimbo Wales rules categorically that "There must be no cabal, no elite, and no hierarchy or structure to get in the way of ... openness to newcomers." I am a relative newcomer. Moreover, said conjectural opinion prejudges outcome of dispute resolution, and also shows disrespect for the spirit if not the letter of dispute resolution procedure.

For above reasons, and also because the prejudice against me has already been or is in the process of being inflicted, (in respect of parties agreeing to mediation request), there was no point in pursuing any attempt at resolution discussion with Nick-D concerning this present matter prior to submission of this arbitration request. Therefore request is submitted direct to abritrators. Communicat (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Response to assertion below in statement below by Nick-D regarding "... proposed changes to and complaints (by Communicat) about the World War II article ... are generally not supported by the balance of mainstream sources ..." The article relies exclusively on mainstream sources, to the total exclusion of other available non-mainsteam sources / positions, and this is the specific reason why NPOV dispute arose in the first place. See Observation by mediator in this specific regard, which is as follows: "I would express my disappointment at what seems to be the acutely partisan nature of the editing of this article ... it saddens me to know that there are articles with regular contributors who are either so devoid of a collegial outlook or who have not yet reported such a disruptive user for administrative attention." (AGK 20:10, 24 August 2010) Communicat (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Nick-D

This is totally unessesary and seems to be an example of Communicat's inability to accept that their proposed changes to and complaints about the World War II article (which mainly seem to be motivated by their POV and are generally not supported by the balance of mainstream sources) haven't attracted support during the lengthy discussions on its talk page. I'd suggest that Communicat take the time to review WP:STICK and move on. Mediation was unessessary as this was an example of a single editor not accepting a clear consensus and there is no reason at all for ArbCom to waste its time on this matter. Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved statement by The ed17

How is Nick-D's comment an attempt at cabal building? Either way, as I stated in a recent RfC, there is no Milhist cabal. This is a pure content dispute that has not progressed through the normal channels, so I believe this should be declined. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by AGK

(This statement made as a third-party, individual observer, and not in my capacity as a representative of the Mediation Committee.)

I declined the request for mediation because not all the parties to the dispute agreed to participate in mediation. I also made an obiter comment that there was a disappointing lack of collegiality in the approach to editing of many of the WWII article's contributors, and that, if there was a general migration to openness to compromise, the dispute would be far easier to resolve. My opinion is that mediation would be the best route for this dispute to take, and I would strongly encourage those editors who declined to participate in mediation to reconsider their decision. A requests for comment or an informal effort by experienced, uninvolved editors to guide the dispute towards resolution (hey, sounds a bit like formal mediation!) would also be helpful.

It is pleasing to see that some editors are requesting assistance with the dispute, both by filing the RfM and now by requesting arbitration. That shows that those who are involved find the dispute as intolerable as those who are part of it. But I do not think arbitration would be sensible or is warranted at this point. AGK 23:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Response to GWH: I wasn't sure if the problem was a widespread lack of collegiality or the existence of POV-pushing. I opined at the mediation case that it may be one of either of those outcomes, and that though I was unsure which it was, both were disappointing – the first for obvious reasons, and the second because nobody had reported it sooner. I agree fully with the rest of your points, and I suspect that we may be saying precisely the same thing (though I expressed myself poorly the first time, no doubt). AGK 14:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved-ish Georgewilliamherbert

I just left a statement and warning to Communicat [3] on the Talk:World War II page, as an uninvolved administrator. Having reviewed the WW2 talk page and the Strategic Bombing article talk page, IMHO Communicat has been editing across the line into disruptive editing, POV fringe pushing, etc.

I don't want to minimize AGK's observation above about the degradation of collegiality he notes above. But there is fundamentally one party here pushing a fringe POV and not understanding and/or respecting community consensus and Wikipedia's ways.

This is a case where someone asking for an uninvolved admin earlier would probably have helped avoid decay of collegiality. However, we are where we are.

I am going to add an additional general statement on collegiality to Talk:World War II in a bit. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

This request will be closed in the next 24 hours. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 19:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/7/0/0)

• Decline. Premature. Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution, which begins with attempts to build consensus on an article and continues with mediation if that is warranted. On the basis of what is before us, I see no evidence that a "cabal" exists here or that our ordinary procedures will not suffice to resolve this dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• Decline - There is no cabal; and per Brad, prior dispute resolution is needed before we examine the situation. KnightLago (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• Decline - in 99% of the cases presented to us, if there's no DR, it will be quickly declined. This is not that other 1%. SirFozzie (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• Decline per Newyorkbrad. Risker on the road (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Decline; I see no reason to believe that this cannot be solved by the community. — Coren ^(talk) 15:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Decline; — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Decline. Was an RfC on the talk page tried at all here? That would be my suggestion, and would show whether any support exists for what Communicat is saying, outside of the regular editors of the article in question. If that RfC approach fails, Communicat will have to accept that there is no support for what he or she is saying here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)