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.

File an arbitration request

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.

Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
- Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

This page is for statements, not discussion.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
Declined case requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=899118467"

Hidden categories:

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
 {{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=45%</noinclude>}}
-== List of music considered the worst{{anchor|Inclusion of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band on List of music considered the worst[edit]}} ==
-'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Electricburst1996|<font color="000FF">Electric</font>]][[User:Electricburst1996|<font color="00FFFF">Burst</font>]]<sup>([[User talk:Electricburst1996|Electron firings]])</sup><sub>([[Special:Contributions/Electricburst1996|Zaps]])</sub> '''at''' 04:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
-=== Involved parties ===
-<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
-*{{userlinks|Electricburst1996}}, ''filing party''
-*{{admin|Sergecross73}}
-*{{userlinks|Wanna Know My Name? Later}}
-*{{userlinks|Micky Moats}}
-*{{admin|Thryduulf}}
-;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. -->
-*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergecross73&diff=898522837&oldid=898258777 Sergecross73]
-*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wanna_Know_My_Name%3F_Later&diff=898522846&oldid=898477521 Wanna Know My Name? Later]
-*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Micky_Moats&diff=898522854&oldid=898506219 Micky Moats]
-*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thryduulf&diff=898522867&oldid=898516476 Thryduulf]
-;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
-* [[Talk:List of music considered the worst#RFC for Sgt. Pepper's inclusion]]
-* [[Talk:List of music considered the worst#Does this article pass WP:LISTN?]]
-* [[Special:PermaLink/898508690#List of music considered the worst|Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#List of music considered the worst]]
-* [[Special:Permalink/898525491#List of music considered the worst|Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#List of music considered the worst]]
-=== Statement by Electricburst1996 ===
-There has been a protracted, heated discussion over whether or not Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band merits inclusion on the list of music considered the worst. So far, attempts to resolve this dispute have been met with limited to no success - an RfC about this matter was closed as "no consensus".
-In the dispute, concern has been brought up about the behavior of Sergecross73 and WKMN?L. Sergecross73 has been accused of violating [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:FRINGE]], [[WP:BIAS]], and [[WP:WEIGHT]] by retaining Sgt. Pepper on the list, while WKMN?L has been accused of violating [[WP:ASPERSIONS]], [[WP:IDHT]], and [[WP:AGF]] in their reaction to Sergecross73's actions.
-=== Statement by Sergecross73 ===
-This is absolutely not worthy of Arbcom’s time or energy. This is just another attempt at [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]] after a very widely participated RFC recently closed inconclusively. This is a run of the mill, minor content dispute of little importance in the overall scheme of Wikipedia. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 10:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Wanna Know My Name? Later ===
-Various RFC have appeared in the talk page about the inclusion of the album. The answer is always, "no consensus". The same thing has happened when the article has been nominated for deletion. The answer is, "no conclusion". I don't think a larger sample of users will help, there will always be some who agree, and some who disagree, and will object the reaching of a consensus. Because of this reason, I would like the Arbcom to review this case, to give some sense in the matter. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Wanna Know My Name? Later|WKMN? Later]] </font><font face="Tahoma" size="1">[ [[User talk:Wanna Know My Name? Later|Let's talk]] ]</font> 14:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Micky Moats ===
-=== Statement by Thryduulf (re Music considered the worst) ===
-I closed the RfC as no consensus, basically because there was (and is) an absence of a clear criteria for inclusion that addressed the key point of dispute. Given this has been unresolved for years, I'm now trying to shepherd discussion leading to an RfC to get a consensus so things can move forward. This is entirely a content dispute, and while not all behaviour has been perfect it hasn't risen to the level even of AN/I yet, let alone arbcom. I would recommend the Committee decline this request. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 08:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
-:{{replyto|QEDK}} the last RfC was extensively publicised and attracted a lot of input, there is no point trying again until the underlying issue has been fixed. I'm attempting to lay the ground work required for that fix - please feel free to contribute to the discussion. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 10:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
-::{{replyto|QEDK}} I understand what you are trying to say, but I still disagree that any consensus can be reached about whether any specific song or album should be included until there is consensus what the criteria for inclusion actually are. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 12:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
-:::{{replyto|QEDK}} It dosn't matter how many unbiased opinions about the inclusion of Sgt. Pepper (or any other specific item) you gather, you wont get a resolution until you put the horse before the cart. The fundamental problem with the RfC was not lack of participation or lack of unbiased editors, it was that you can't answer "does this album meet the inclusion criteria?" until you have a defined inclusion criteria. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
-::::{{Replyto|QEDK}} indeed, the present discussion is an attempt to come up with a small set of coherent, workable options to present at a large scale RFC - the theory being that RfCs work best when there is a simple question with a small number of possible answers. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
-=== Comment by Pldx1 ===
-I don't think that a full case is required to include
-[[Special:Permalink/898523557#Inclusion of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band on List of music considered the worst |Inclusion of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band on List of music considered the worst]] in the [[List of Case Requests considered the worst]]. A thin possibility exists nevertheless that the present request could be a sneaky_comment/humor_piece targeting the "Canadian politics" case and the way the initial comments were not written to be understandeable by the random reader. Obviously to be taken with some salt... [[User:Pldx1|Pldx1]] ([[User talk:Pldx1|talk]]) 07:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
-=== Statement by [[User:QEDK|QEDK]] ===
-Content disputes are not under the mandate of the Arbitration Committee, unless it has spillage onto conduct disputes as well. From my reading of the matter, and further reading the closing statement by Thryduulf, confirms my suspicions that this is making a small issue into something that needs to be drastically fixed - lots of POV sure, editors biased sure, squabbles here, there, it is how Wikipedia is. Just exercise [[WP:SNOW]] and ditch this request. And if it's really a big issue, just make a proper, publicized request for comment, having closed discussions on article talk pages will only lead to some bad compromise version of "no consensus". --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|qedk]] ([[User talk:QEDK|t]] <span style="color:#fac">桜</span> [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|c]])</span> 10:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
-: {{re|Thryduulf}} <s>It wasn't using FRS</s> and I didn't see cross postings to VPP, and/or AN. And from my reading of the [[Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Archive|CENT archive]], it wasn't posted there either. So, no, it wasn't widely publicized at all. In fact, I only came across it while checking ANRFC and then again, this case request. Quoting you, {{tq|It's clear that some commenters here have been brought in by the notice on Reddit, but they are not all making the same recommendation and not all of those comments below are more like votes than reasoned arguments.}} Problems like this can be easily avoided when the sample size is large enough to remove the bias that exists already. Hope that explains what I tried to say. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|qedk]] ([[User talk:QEDK|t]] <span style="color:#fac">桜</span> [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|c]])</span> 12:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
-:: {{re|Thryduulf}} I think we are arguing different points. I do not disagree when you say that {{tq|any consensus can[not] be reached about whether any specific song or album should be included until there is consensus what the criteria for inclusion actually are}}. I simply meant to say that the problems with the pitfalls of the latest RfC could be avoided with wider community input, where NPOV editors could assess the issue as a third-party and eventually, maybe work towards a specific criteria for exclusion as it became necessary as well. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|qedk]] ([[User talk:QEDK|t]] <span style="color:#fac">桜</span> [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|c]])</span> 12:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
-::: {{re|Thryduulf}} You're talking about the fundamentals of the issue, which is obviously correct. That does not negate the fact that resolution is easier when it's not a small group of editors suggesing a certain criteria for inclusion. Again, what I am saying is ofcourse, just a possible outcome and a recommendation from my part, fwiw. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|qedk]] ([[User talk:QEDK|t]] <span style="color:#fac">桜</span> [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|c]])</span> 13:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
-* {{re|Redrose64}} Indeed it was, I saw it was closed on 11th May and checked back upto 11th April revisions, assuming it would run for one month extra, but seems like I didn't check back far enough. I've struck my statement regarding the same. Secondly, RfCs are listed in a lot of places and not listed on a lot of places, and given CANVASSING guidelines, the only fit place to do that are on neutral noticeboards (and I wasn't suggesting AN, but that some RfCs concerning admins do end up there, so just stating). Furthermore, your statement that this falls within the arbitrary CENTNOT guidelines is incorrect, as an RfC would fall under the {{tq|Discussions on matters that have a wide impact}} and {{tq|Discussions on proposed policies, guidelines and procedures}} points and not {{tq|Content disputes}}. I also think statements on case requests are supposed to address the ArbCom on whether the issue should be taken up or not, and this could easily have been resolved at my talk page, without me having to post a wall of text that counts in the 500 word-count limit of my statement. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|qedk]] ([[User talk:QEDK|t]] <span style="color:#fac">桜</span> [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|c]])</span> 15:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
-===Statement by Newyorkbrad===
-As others have said, both sides of this dispute may be correct given the lack of clear inclusion criteria, but it's obvious that it's a relatively minor dispute that isn't worth too much fuss, and that ArbCom is not the place to solve it.
-::''And it really doesn't matter if I'm wrong I'm right
-::''Where I belong I'm right
-::''Where I belong
-::''See the people standing there who disagree
-::''And wonder why they don't get in my door
-<small><span class="autosigned">—[[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Newyorkbrad|contribs]]) 11:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Signing-->
-===Statement by Redrose64===
-{{replyto|QEDK}} By FRS, I assume that you mean [[WP:FRS]]. If so, your claim of "It wasn't using FRS" is untrue. Between 14 and 30 March 2019, ten FRS notices were sent out, and the recipients were: {{diff|User talk:Brandt Luke Zorn|prev|887683164|Brandt Luke Zorn}}; {{diff|User talk:Zubin12|prev|887684657|Zubin12}}; {{diff|User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|prev|888136858|NinjaRobotPirate}}; {{diff|User talk:MJL/Archive 8|prev|888286416|MJL}}; {{diff|User talk:Argento Surfer|prev|888750777|Argento Surfer}}; {{diff|User talk:Doniago|prev|888909793|Doniago}}; {{diff|User talk:Chess|prev|889202265|Chess}}; {{diff|User talk:Mathglot|prev|889512427|Mathglot}}; {{diff|User talk:ARR8|prev|889818714|ARR8}}; and {{diff|User talk:Raykyogrou0|prev|890110923|Raykyogrou0}}. RfCs are rarely advertised at either [[WP:AN]] or [[WP:CENT]] (indeed, [[WP:CENTNOT]] explicitly lists content disputes as inappropriate); however some do occasionally get publicised at one village pump or another, but it's not a requirement. However, besides FRS, the RfC was listed for a full thirty days at [[WP:RFC/MEDIA]] (and [[WP:RFC/A]] which transcludes that) - the RfC was {{diff|Talk:List of music considered the worst|prev|886530035|initiated at 21:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)}} and {{diff|Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture|prev|886534843|listed on RFC/MEDIA at 22:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)}}, Legobot {{diff|Talk:List of music considered the worst|prev|891134054|removed the rfc tag after thirty days}} and consequently the RfC was {{diff|Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture|prev|891134067|delisted at 22:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)}}. It was then taken to [[WP:ANRFC]] with {{diff|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure|prev|891197218|this batch of requests}}. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] &#x1f339; ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 14:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
-===Statement by Robert McClenon===
-I declined a case request at [[WP:DRN|DRN]] to conduct moderated discussion and arrive at a consensus as to whether to include Sgt. Pepper in the list.  My decline is included (correctly) in the list of previous resolution efforts by the filing party.  At the time that I declined the case request, I thought that it was a good-faith but misguided effort to resolve a content dispute on which the community is approximately evenly divided.  At this point I agree that the ArbCom should decline the case, but I see the persistence of this filing as [[vexatious litigation]], and I suggest strongly that a [[WP:TBAN|topic-ban]] be imposed on the filing party from the topics of the Sgt. Pepper album and the list of music considered the worst, broadly construed.  This was a content dispute.  Almost every conduct dispute originates as a content dispute compounded by misconduct.  I advise the ArbCom to decline this case, but I advise that some administrator impose a sanction for [[vexatious litigation]].  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 05:14, 25 May 2019 (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.
-<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->
-=== List of music considered the worst: Clerk notes ===
-:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
-* {{ping|Electricburst1996}} Please notify the parties in this request. You can use the template <code><nowiki>{{subst:arbcom notice|Inclusion of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band on List of music considered the worst}}</nowiki></code> to do so. – <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User_talk:Bradv|brad''v'']]</span>[[Special:Contributions/Bradv|<span style="color:red">🍁</span>]] 04:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
-*:Thank you. – <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User_talk:Bradv|brad''v'']]</span>[[Special:Contributions/Bradv|<span style="color:red">🍁</span>]] 04:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
-* Shortened the request title from ''Inclusion of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band on List of music considered the worst''.  <span class="nowrap">[[User:AGK|<span style="color:black;">'''AGK'''</span>]][[User talk:AGK#top|<span style="color: black;">&nbsp;&#9632;</span>]]</span> 08:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
-* {{ping|QEDK}} You are at 571 words now. I won't refactor your last comment, but you have no further words so you are aware. -- [[User talk:DeltaQuad|<span style="color:white;background-color:#8A2DB8"><b>Amanda</b></span>]] <small>[[User:DeltaQuad|(aka DQ)]]</small> 17:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
-* {{clerk note}} A majority of active arbitrators have voted to decline this case. This request will be removed when it is 48 hours old. – <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User_talk:Bradv|brad''v'']]</span>[[Special:Contributions/Bradv|<span style="color:red">🍁</span>]] 19:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
-=== List of music considered the worst: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/0> ===
-{{anchor|1=Inclusion of [[Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band]] on [[List of music considered the worst]]: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter|2=List of music considered the worst: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small>
-* '''Decline.'''  The closure at [[Special:PermaLink/898516260#RFC for Sgt. Pepper's inclusion|Talk:List of music considered the worst#RFC for Sgt. Pepper's inclusion]] dealt comprehensively with the content issues under dispute.  The committee might intervene if that consensus was being systematically undermined, or the community found applying that consensus impossible.  However, as far as I can tell there are no such circumstances and an unripe dispute like this one is therefore unsuitable for arbitration.  (I noted one discussion was being targeted by off-wiki forums like [[Reddit]] in pretty minor ways – the community can probably deal with that, again, without arbitration.)  <span class="nowrap">[[User:AGK|<span style="color:black;">'''AGK'''</span>]][[User talk:AGK#top|<span style="color: black;">&nbsp;&#9632;</span>]]</span> 08:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
-* '''Decline''' There is nothing for the committee to address at this time. [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 11:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' per above. <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 12:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
-* '''Decline'''. [[User:Thryduulf]] appears to be planning to do something useful. I'd be interested in taking part in a discussion on inclusion criteria for this list - indeed, for lists in general. Lists are problematic, existing slightly outside of the established inclusion and notability criteria for articles, and so follow a different logic that can cause this sort of deadlock. [[User:SilkTork|SilkTork]] ([[User talk:SilkTork|talk]]) 16:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' I am inclined to agree that ''much'' more work is required for all options to have been exhausted. The [[WP:DRN]] was closed immediately for a number of problems and [[WP:NPOV/N]] was closed under FORUMSHOPPPING as the RFC outcome had not been decided. Simply having an RFC means very little if the RFC does not address the underlying issues. It only asked whether [[Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band]] should be included rather than building a consensus on inclusion criteria. '''[[User:Mkdw|<span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw</span>]]''' [[User talk:Mkdw|<sup>''<span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk</span>''</sup>]] 17:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''', per my colleagues. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 01:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
-*Well, ''I'' don't like it that much, so.... oh wait, not how arbcom works :) Late, but, '''decline''' per above. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 06:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
-*Also a late '''decline''', per above. &spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 14:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)