Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
User:Doncram		8 January 2013	{{{votes}}}
User:Firsfron		7 January 2013	{{{votes}}}
Henderson Knocked out Fedor		7 January 2013	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	8 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

User:Doncram

Initiated by SarekOfVulcan (talk) at 05:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Doncram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Orlady (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff. 1
• Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doncram
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doncram 2 (deleted as uncertified)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224#Doncram NHRP stubs

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

Doncram is a long-standing editor in Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. He has created large swathes of content, but has frequently run up against other editors relating to both the content and how he reacts when the content is challenged. For example, Elen of the Roads comments in November 2011 that she had blocked him for three months to stop him transferring the content of another database into Wikipedia without any check being made on the quality of what was being imported (there were a lot of problems with the other database). All the time. Without stopping. And endlessly abusing both the guy who wrote the script that he used, and anyone who tried to clean up the mess. He has particular issues with Orlady, whom he accuses of running a "hate list", presumably User:Orlady/List. When Orlady quoted the consensus determination from an uninvolved admin, Doncram's response was "I disagree with Orlady's characterization of consensus in those previous discussions."

In June 2011, during the Archive224 discussion linked above, I became so frustrated at Doncram's repeatedly adding material from a database dump that contained material that blatantly didn't belong in the article, with talk page comments not addressing the issues, that I intentionally broke 3RR in the hopes that Doncram would be blocked for edit warring as well. In December, we got into another edit war on Charles Coker Wilson, where Doncram was changing a citation that I had added in a way that introduced incorrect information. His only contribution on the talkpage was An editor has exceeded wp:3RR in disputing a reference in this article. I expect it will be discussed at an administrator noticeboard, will return to editing here later. This got me a 1 week block, but Doncram got 6 months.

He has a habit of responding to articles that have been moved off his preferred title by reverting the move and then demanding that the other editor use the RM process, as seen in the history of Charles E. Bell.

Earlier today, Doncram began the process of opening an arbitration case, but failed to actually say what he was opening the case regarding. When Elkman commented that he wish[ed] you would have started your request for arbitration in your own user space, or that you would have posted something fully-formed there, instead of starting a skeleton case with a timestamp and then just walking away Doncram responded I think that statement amounts to a personal attack, it is meant in an uncivil mean way to denigrate me and to complain. This pretty much sums up why this has come to arbitration: Doncram overpersonalizes disputes, and he leaves unfinished things in the encyclopedia for other people to clean up. The community, despite imposing edit warring, disruptive editing, and personal attack blocks, has essentially failed to deal with the situation. Therefore, it's up to you.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

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

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

User:Firsfron

Initiated by Tal1962 (talk) at 04:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Tal1962 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Firsfron (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tal1962&diff=next&oldid=531072085
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tal1962&diff=next&oldid=531710125

Statement by Tal1962

My issues are not pertaining to making sure things are accurate or done within the wiki guidelines, but with the fact that Firsfron has been undoing EVERY contribution I have made to the Joan Crawford article regardless of whether or not everything I have added is at issue. Despite my asking him to stick to the suggested policies of using the talk page to settle any disagreements when it comes to what can and cannot be considered reliable or what is or is not sufficient information detailing reliable sources, and even going so far as to copy and paste them within our talks, he has stated he will undo things regardless.

This is upsetting because, except where I have at times forgotten to include page numbers, his comments are confusing. He claims I included a link to a fan website – I did not. He claims also that I failed to include ISBN numbers for books – again, I did not. So far, all books I have used as resources were either already included in the ref list prior to my using them, or added as per the ISBN#s on the back of each of the books (all of which I hold in my own collection).

His apparent refusal to use the talk pages BEFORE undoing things appears to me to go against the suggested methods as outlined by wiki. I did show him the courtesy of offering to work with him in that way, but his response was to say he would undo things regardless.

I have no issues when someone points out my mistakes – good for me and them. But to state that I need to learn the rules while ignoring them himself/herself seems to me to be absurd. While I may not be perfect as to formatting and always including complete information (page numbers), as it happens, many comments within the article remain insourced –yet he has failed to challenge these at all.

His seeming air or condescension is not in keeping with Wiki standards. As an administer, I believe that, regardless of my seeming lack of ability or alleged mistakes, it is incumbent upon him to exhibit patience and be willing to do what is best for the article as oppose to simply challenging/undoing everything, even when he is incorrect.

Example, I referenced a link to an article about Miss Crawford’s appearance on television in 1975, a time after which many assume she was no longer making ANY appearances. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=mp0fAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gdUEAAAAIBAJ&dq=joan%20crawford%20television&pg=858%2C6180927

This is not a link to a fan website, but rather an article which is the ONLY source I can find in writing thus far to back up my research that Crawford was, even if to a lesser degree, still very active after October of 1974.

I am not very concerned with the article itself so much as the admins manner of handling things.

Statement by Ryan Vesey

This needs a quick and easy procedural close. There is no level of dispute resolution that this discussion has reached. An absolute minimum amount of discussion has ocurred on Tal1962's talk page. No discussion has occurred on the article talk page. I don't know whether it can be considered a content or conduct dispute yet because discussion has not reached a point allowing that determination. I suggest that this be closed and that Tal1962 take discussion to the talk page. If a solution cannot be found at that venue, Dispute Resolution seems to be the place to go. Ryan Vesey 09:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional Statement by Tom Lowery

I have a question - How can their be a discussion if no one will discuss the edits I make PRIOR to making them? While it may be true that arbitration was not yet required, the general attitude of Firsron (and to a lesser degree, Ryan, is in direct contrevention of standards as outlines in Wiki's policy. However, I will abide by the decline and the comments below and attempt to work in the manner suggest, using the talk page as an attempt to clear up the many issues this article has. HOWEVER, I am concerned that these arbitrary UNDOs are happening all over Wiki. What is the point of having guidelines if they are not to be followed? Thanks.Tal1962 (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Firsfron

Can someone please close this premature request for arbitration? I'll note that three different editors have reverted all of Tal1962's edits to Joan Crawford:

• user:Pinkadelica on December 10th (with edit summary Reverted to revision 527083385 by Asarelah: Restoring sourced content.)
• user:Firsfron on January 3rd (with edit summary revert unsourced additions)
• user:Firsfron on January 6th (with edit summary revert to the last sourced version (new version includes incomplete citations to books without page numbers, ISBNs, dates, and bare URLs; this is a Good Article; additions need to be formatted and fully sourced)
• user:Ryan Vesey on January 7th (with edit summary completely inappropriate)
• user:Ryan Vesey immediately afterward, fully reverting Tal1962's edits (with edit summary Reverted to revision 531706894 by Firsfron: There's too much noise in these edits to separate the good from the bad, a heck of a lot of OR and synthesis is involved, talk page is that way).

• In addition, Ryan has (correctly) reverted Tal1962's WP:BLP violation on Mommie Dearest.

Over the last month, editors working independently of one another have each removed all of Tal1962's sourceless and/or poorly-sourced additions to Joan Crawford, which although not a WP:BLP, has WP:BLP issues attached to it (due to the opposing claims made by Crawford's two living daughters).

All Tal1962 must do to keep the content is fully source the content s/he wants to include. This content has been removed again (not by me!) because it's a mixture of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and unsourced content, with the original sources carelessly left in, "verifying" content they do not actually verify. No one is going to add 54 tags to each of Tal1962's 54 edits to the article, which included poorly-sourced material, in part concerning several living persons, particularly when it appears to be sourced by the citations carelessly left in when the unsourced content was added. I offered twice to help Tal1962 with formatting, but I did insist that the editor provide citations with page numbers (because I can't provide them for the user, and I can't verify the content without page numbers). "I'd be glad to help you format the content correctly (that's easy), but you can't rely on other editors to add page numbers to incomplete citations... you must provide them." "I will be glad to assist you with formatting, but you must provide citations including page numbers for books." Tal1962 continued to add unsourced and undersourced material even after I moved on to other articles and CAT:SPEEDY clean-up. I'm happy to note that those all those additions have since been removed from the article by another careful editor.

I'm pleased that Ryan has opened a discussion about the content on the article's talk page, so that sorting of potential good content from poor can be done, but I note with sadness that Tal1962 is already leaving notes for poor Ryan on his talk page, reminding Ryan to "maintain a civil tone"(!)

The issue of proper sourcing of the unsourced additions can be worked out on the talk page, but it won't solve the issue of an editor who, after several years of editing, didn't know how to sign a talk page (and who hadn't even used a talk page since 2010), and who continues to claim that his/her unsourced content, including content about living individuals, must remain, and all other editors can do is add tags to it. "I AM conversant with how one is supposed to question unsourced information and, no offense intended at all, you are not following those guidelines when you simply UNDO what I have added."

Also, shame on Arb SilkTork for defending these types of edits about living people that do not contain adequate sourcing. According to SilkTork "Tal1962 has used sources". The source used in the linked example is: Variety issues of May 10, 1979 to 1989 (which isn't checkable, and thus fails verifiability); this series of edits also included unsourced additions such as [Rex] "Reed could not have witnessed anything as he was born in Texas in 1938 and did not meet Crawford until the 1960s." Mr. Reed is still living, and claims that Mr. Reed has not told the truth need sourcing. That sentence was sourced to nothing at all, and there are many other examples of that in Tal1962's edits. SilkTork needs to review WP:BLP: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (emphasis not mine).

One of the articles in question, Joan Crawford, is a Good Article, an article which is supposed to represent Wikipedia's idea of a well-written, neutral article. Given the recent news of a long-undetected hoax "Good Article", one would hope that all members of the Arbitration Committee would see the wisdom of removing potential WP:BLP concerns — partially sourced or completely unsourced — from a Good Article, per the relevant policy. SilkTork's comment that Tal1962 spent "4+ hours [of] work" ignores the fact that in 4+ hours of "work", even after being asked to provide sources, Tal1962 added content that cast aspersions on several living subjects, in several cases, without sources. I strongly urge SilkTork to refactor his/her comments in this case, as they are giving Tal1962 the impression that ArbCom supports the addition of poorly-sourced and unsourced material in articles, up to and including making aspersions on living individuals.

Finally, I'd like to add that I am welcoming to newcomers. I estimate I've welcomed over a thousand users to Wikipedia during the last nine years. Tal1962, however, is no longer a new user, and must abide by our policies, including souring of content about living individuals. I've told the user I will help the user format his/her citations, but the onus is on Tal1962 to provide reliable sources for the added content. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Response by Tom Lowery

I am glad to see some response from Firsron. However, his tone is, once again, bordering on the verge of a seeming contest.

Firstly, I want to make clear that MY intention is not to take part in a contest of wills. My first statement was very clear - I take issue with the UNDOs. We are supposed to be EDITORS, not UNDOERS.

In direct reply to Firsron's comments:

1) I readily admitted that I was lacking some citations - however, when I added them, once again Firsron and Ryan undid them - completely. They did not ask about them on the talk page or even try to communicate with me about anything. In fact, Ryan wrote that something I wrote "hundreds is POV and likely false, section needs improved refs." "LIKELY false?" The whole issue of these two people undoing everything I wrote had to do with alleged lack of sources. Other than Ryan, who says it is likely false? And why is it that my references to THREE sources are false? How does he know this? And why didn't he proceed as SilkTork suggested and in fact, Ryan and Firsron insist that I proceed, by using the talk pages? I took and continue to take issue with these kinds of statements that, taken with all that has transpired in this period of undo wars, clearly show these two editors feel their edits are of my value than mine. Once again, it is not a contest. And I see no reason why I should not ask Ryan to maintain a civil position. Saying that my "claim" is unlikely is not evidence of any good will. AND, despite SilkTork's comments, the undos continue.

The question of adding 54 citation tags is a rather strange one. One can easily ask at the top of the whole article to improve it, or message me on my talk page to ask ME to explain and/or assist me to make it better. As SilkTork says, undos lead to bad feelings.

This so called violation Mommie Dearest is also making me scratch my head. Ryan claims what I wrote had no bearing on the book. If that is the case, what bearing does Lypsinka's drag show have on it? The FACT that I can provide substantive documentation what I wrote has been made clear by me on the page, and one can see from my former edit that I not only provided VERIFIABLE refs, I also fixed a glaring error which stated that Liz Smith claimed to be a witness to the goings on in MD. This is a bold faced inaccuracy, one I backed up with a link to an article by Ms. Smith herself.

In short (and I apologize for this being my third comment), this spirit of cooperation offered by Ryan and Firsron (who are two among 4/5 people who have undone anything in the past week or so) fades away by virtue of all the undoing and seeming refusal to reply to my concerns about Wiki procedures, which I clearly and deliberately outline to Firsron when he suggest I need to learn how to use Wiki. I may not be as conversant as he when it comes to certain things, but as SilkTork also says, there is more than one way of doing things.

I find it amazing that Firsron (and, by virtue of his undos, Ryan) appear not to care about what SilkTork has emphasized, which IS in keeping with what is written elsewhere on Wiki. Firsfron's revert approach IS inappropriate. My edits were NOT vandalistic, and are indeed a genuine attempt to add detail to the article. If firsron and Ryan really want to assist me, and to maintain good will, where are their talk comments prior to undoing EVERYTHING without question?

As to sources, this is a tricky subject. If you do not think the sources are adequate, say as much on my talk page and I will happily try to improve or add. In fact, I did, and was then undone because were, as Ryan said, too many ORs. The whole point of the various refs I added (perhaps not as well as I could have) was to show that JC's DOB was not a given. Ryan and Firsron may not have liked how I DID this, but they could have avoided all of this by saying as much and offering advice BEFORE the undos.

THAT is my issue and why I brought this to ARB.

Firsron claims that Italic textThe source used in the linked example is: Variety issues of May 10, 1979 to 1989 (which isn't checkable, and thus fails verifiability);Italic text That is incorrect. Every issue of Variety is on hand in at least two locations - NYC Performing Arts Library and The Academy Libary in LA. I could have added this information had I been asked.

Firsron also says (he is not without a point here) Italic textthis series of edits also included unsourced additions such as [Rex] "Reed could not have witnessed anything as he was born in Texas in 1938 and did not meet Crawford until the 1960s." Mr. Reed is still living, and claims that Mr. Reed has not told the truth need sourcing. That sentence was sourced to nothing at all,Italic text That is true. But then every time I use a magazine article to as a source, they undo it. RR WAS born in 1938 and WAS born in Texas. Again, if asked, I could easily have made a clearer point. My comment never stated Mr. Reed was not telling the truth. I contested the NOTION that he was there during that period. However, I do see how that can be misleading and, at best, needed clarity.

Italic textSilkTork needs to review WP:BLP: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (emphasis not mine).Italic text I fully agree. But again, many of my sources do NOT fall under this catagory. Obviously some did. UNDOs are not useful in this case. And the claim that people do not have time to cite or research these things is shocking. Why are we editing here? Outside of Wiki guidelines, where is it written that a book written by a friend of JCs is not a good source? Why is a magazine article written by Liz Smith a bad source?

SilkTork represents my sentiment when he wrote "In a collaborative, collegiate project we assist each other, and improve on what previous editors have done, rather than reject it. We work toward perfection, but we don't expect it."

One would hope that Firsron would see not only the wisdom of following ALL wiki guidelines, but also in not doing things such as undos or making comments claiming something someone has written is "unlikely." Their tone is very condescending and unhelpful.

Nevertheless, I did post comments about these things on the JC talk page in hopes of a civilized discourse. I am wary but willing to try.

I understand why the ArbCom feels I jumped the gun. I did read about the process very carefully, and I did talk to Firsron a bit but his reply was very confrontational, saying he will undo as he sees fit. It is difficult to accept help from someone who talks AT you as opposed to TO you.

Finally, I feel it only fair to point out that the moment Firsron's undos stopped, Ryan's began. If what I write here is to be attacked by numerous people, the very least they could do is talk first, undo only as a last resort. Tal1962 (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/8/0/0)

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Comment: Obviously waiting to hear from Firsfron but, in the meantime, Tal1962, could you please supply diffs to provide examples for each of the aspects you are concerned about. Thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I had a very brief look at this early this morning and shared some of SilkTork's concerns about the perhaps slightly confrontational approach of some of the interactions.diff Hopefully, it is well on the way to being resolved.[2] So, decline,  Roger Davies ^talk 20:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline: Arbitration is the last stage of dispute resolution. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for alternate methods of trying to resolve any dispute before bringing the matter here. NW (Talk) 12:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. T. Canens (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline Even without comment from Firsfron, I think it's fairly clear from the level of dispute resolution which has presently happened that this is not yet ready for arbitration. Tal1962, I see you haven't actually edited a talk page on Wikipedia since 2010, I suggest you attempt to discuss the changes you wish to make to the article at Talk:Joan Crawford, where other editors will be able to offer their opinions on the matter too. Beyond that, there's a lot of different methods of dispute resolution which you could try before we would consider arbitration. Worm^TT(talk) 13:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline per WTT. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. Let's try and hash it out at other venues first, please. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline as an arbitration case per comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Firsfron's revert approach to editing is inappropriate. Tal1962's edits were not vandalistic, and appear to be a genuine attempt to add detail to the article. Discussion is the way forward, and doing a total revert of another editor's 4+ hours work (over thirty individual edits) with an edit summary that they should start a discussion rather than starting a discussion oneself is likely to lead to conflict. Tal1962 has used sources, and reverting the edits because the cites are not fully formatted is not the correct way forward. In a collaborative, collegiate project we assist each other, and improve on what previous editors have done, rather than reject it. We work toward perfection, but we don't expect it. However, this is a minor incident, and is not at the level of formal dispute resolution - and certainly not ArbCom. Discussion has barely started, and I encourage both editors to continue to talk together to reach an appropriate solution. I am pleased that Firsfron has offered to assist Tal1962 in formatting citations, and I hope that this supportive, collaborative approach will continue. Decline as ArbCom case. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Henderson Knocked out Fedor

Initiated by PortlandOregon97217 (talk) at 02:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• PortlandOregon97217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Delinquent1904 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Delinquent1904

Dif of notifiying IP edit. I just saw they were warned earlier for disruptive editing.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Fedor Emelianenko Talk page
• dif of GiantSnowman asking to discuss on the talkpage rather than removed unsourced material
• Diff of attempting to talk about Dan Henderson knocking out Fedor, with sources to boot

Diff of unexplained IP edit Another Unexplained IP edit of sourced content in question

Statement by PortlandOregon97217

Delinquent keeps undoing my sourced edits with no explanation. , as well as here, and he flat out removed my edit, which I had mentioned on Fedors Talkpage, without even trying to discuss the matter. I'm not sure what else to say. I just think that I have the sources that say this is a KO, and other parties can't seem to see reason, or even discuss the matter.

Edit: The same is being done, except by IP's, at the Dan Henderson page. I was having trouble adding the IP as a party involved, But I will notify them. I actually completely forgot about Dan Henderson's article until afterthefact Thanks Thank you

Answer to question of core issue The core issue is that the user in question, as well as the IP(plus probably multiple others) keep undoing my good faith, and well sourced edits, without an explanation, all while blatantly disregarding an administrators requests to discuss the matter on the talk forum. The user that is. I did not ask the admin about the IP editor in question. I also figure that it is best to settle the matter here, since it spans multiple pages, and since I dont want to just run to the admin that warned the user and say "look he did it again", and then move onto notifying an admin about the once warned IP editor about the matter. The material is whether Dan Henderson knocked out Fedor, or if it was in fact a TKO. The sources say knockout, yet people keep reverting it to a TKO.

The other core issue is that if you check my contributions I started out on here as an outright jerk, but have since calmed down and have learned to wade through the processes and try to play by the rules as best I can. Then I have people who see fit to trample on my well sourced edits with no explanation. I'm sure there have been many a person driven away from Wikipedia because of this. I'm not going to be one of them. But all the same it is very irking. One of the other people responding about this issue coming to a head. Why not make it now? Thank you. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment- see what I mean?. It took maybe 6 hours for the content to get scrapped.
• Comment Please see my plight here. This person is blind to the refs presented. To compound the matter the article was one of a string of articles nominated in the last few days by a confirmed sockpupppet. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Rschen7754

The article is part of the MMA area, which if I'm not mistaken has been the subject of a community-imposed sanction. This doesn't come off to me as something that really needs arbitration on first glance, but probably needs a bit more attention than the typical "content dispute" thing that gets declined off this page every week. --Rschen7754 02:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

This is clearly not ripe for Arbitration, but the Committee ought to be aware (as I am sure they are) that this subject area is a hornet's nest, and will probably require ArbCom intervention at some point, since various parties don't seem to know how to play well together, and off-wiki canvassing provides the irritation that keeps the hornets abuzz. It's likely that, because of the outside influence factor, ArbCom will have to be fairly draconian when this finally comes to a head. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Vesey

As Beyond My Ken said, this clearly isn't ripe for Arbitration; however, can one of the Arbitrators or one of the administrators who watch this page make an action as an administrator? Undoing an edit that is not vandalism requires an explanation. It is clear that PortlandOregon's edits are not vandalism. Delinquent's has undone the edit with the generic summary, the generic summary, someone really needs to ban this guy, default summary. It has been too long for administrative action to be taken; however, any administrator is allowed to impose sanctions on an editor editing MMA related articles per Wikipedia:General sanctions (which doesn't include the letter combination MMA, a mistake in my opinion). I'm sure an administrator can think of a sanction that could help solve this issue. Ryan Vesey 10:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur

I make the following declarations: Involved in the various MMA discussions from a policy and existsing consensus side.
I note that no reading of the MMA riot act ({{Uw-mmawarning}}) has been made to Delinquent1904. I suggest that this be enacted post haste as the locus of dispute is tagged with the MMA project banner and MMA is discussed somewhat significantly in the page. I do concur with other editors that in the future there will likely be a ArbCom case that finally settles the behavioral disputed in the entire article space of MMA, but this is simply annother tall blade in the field of grass that is the area of debate in MMA. Hasteur (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

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

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Question: I think I grasp the essentials of this but would someone kindly explain what the core issues of the dispute are please?  Roger Davies ^talk 04:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, PortlandOregon97217, for the background. Brad offers sound advice below to put the content issue beyond doubt; the conduct aspects at this point could probably be handled by any admin. Perhaps ask at WP:AN? As far as a case goes, decline.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• While there may be general problems with editing in the Mixed martial arts topic area, this particular incident appears quite minor. Delinquent1904 is a significant contributor to Fedor Emelianenko and so may feel they don't need to explain their actions when reverting the edits of a more recent contributor. I feel that informing Delinquent1904 that when engaged in an editing dispute one is expected to communicate with other editors should be sufficient, and I will do that. If Delinquent1904 continues to revert without explaining their actions, then the matter can be raised at ANI, or other dispute resolution forum. Decline as an ArbCom matter. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline per SilkTork. NW (Talk) 12:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline, SilkTork sums up my thoughts here rather well, I expect we may have to look at MMA in the future but this incident doesn't need arbitration. Worm^TT(talk) 12:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. T. Canens (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2013 (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, but merely that arbitration isn't the best way to resolve it. I suggest you look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, where there are several kinds of dispute resolution that could be useful. In this case, for the content side of the dispute, I would suggest opening a discussion on the Dispute resolution noticeboard; if there are conduct issues that should be dealt with, on the other hand, after discussing with the editor in question, you can start an WP:ANI thread. The topic area is under discretionary sanctions, which means that admins are given a wide latitude to deal with ongoing disruption. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Decline as an arbitration case per comments above. With regard to the content dispute, I don't know how records or statistics are kept in the MMA world, but is there some sort of official governing body that publishes records of match outcomes? In professional boxing, for example, one could debate endlessly whether a given fight's outcome should have been recorded as a knockout or a TKO or whatever, but there wouldn't be uncertainty into how the outcome was officially recorded, even if there were conflicting reports in the newspapers the next morning. Not sure if the same applies here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)