Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case
Requests for arbitration
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Muse Edits Reversal | 6 September 2018 | 0/4/0 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation | none | (orig. case) | 7 June 2024 |
| Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction | none | none | 29 May 2024 |
| Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads | none | none | 4 June 2024 |
| Amendment request: India-Pakistan | none | (orig. case) | 7 June 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
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. 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. This page is for statements, not discussion.
|
Muse Edits Reversal
Initiated by CrunchyCookie (talk) at 08:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Involved parties
- CrunchyCookie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Ss112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- [diff of notification Ss112]
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CrunchyCookie#September_2018
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ss112 (content deleted by him)
Statement by CrunchyCookie
This began as a content dispute, then quickly spilled over into a conduct dispute as well.
The other day I made an edit to the Discography section for the band Muse -- replacing Billboard's "Hot 100" chart data with Billboard's "Alternative Rock" data -- which user Ss112 reverted. My guess was that he just didn't have good enough knowledge about the American music market (he is Australian) to understand my reasoning, so I explained how in this country, Muse fits squarely within the Alt Rock segment, which is generally distinct from the pop category. It's mainly Alt Rock stations that play their music; only a small fraction of their songs cross over to pop stations, and those that do score pretty low (as evidenced by the Hot 100 data). So if the Wikipedia landing page is to show one column of data per country, it should be for the genre they actually belong to. I think this would be obvious to an American, and I have trouble imagining any reasonable-minded person who knows this market well having a problem with the change.
Over several posts across each other's talk pages, I presented these points several times, yet Ss112 showed no interest in discussing them. He basically just dodged the issues, then told me to go open up a public discussion instead. Then went silent.
If his objection had been substantial or based on an informed point of view, I'd agree a public discussion would be the best next step. But his choices to just block my edits without good cause, then show no interest in understanding and refuse to engage in any conversation about the merits of the case, strike me as the actions of an inconsiderate troll who hides behind site policy. That doesn't warrant triggering a public discussion.
For the record, this is the first time in my 14 years of Wikipedia editing that I've ever questioned a reversal. This edit was done in good faith, was logical and reasoned, and most importantly, improved the quality of information on the page. The edit should stand as it is unless it runs into an objection of a user who's knowledgeable and responsible. That's not what happened here.
@Softlavender: Which Dispute Resolution option would you recommend most, given that I'm more trying to report and stop his behavior (a "grievance", to use Wiki terminology) even more than settle the content dispute? I'm looking for a ruling from an admin/arbiter, followed by an official decision.
Statement by Ss112
I have little else to offer than exactly what Softlavender said below. This is an arrogant editor who despite editing on and off since 2005 is still basically a newbie. They continued to hound me with talk page messages attempting to get a response after I told them on their talk page I was done replying or trying to get through to them—further evidence they refused to heed anything I told them in the first place. This is an editor who does not know how to handle being reverted and is so baffled by the concept they'd rather come to ArbCom than do what I, Ad Orientem (after I asked them to intervene), and I assume most other editors if asked would suggest: take it to the talk page per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. There is nothing to arbitrate here, and is a complete waste of time on everyone's part. Ss112 09:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Softlavender
CrunchyCookie, this does not belong at ArbCom. You need to discuss matters on the talkpage of the article (not on the other editor's talkpage), and seek WP:CONSENSUS. You've never used an article's talkpage, and you need to start doing so. If necessary (if you can't resolve matters after extensive discussion on the article's talkpage), utilize some form of dispute resolution, or post a neutral request for input at the related WikiProject talk page. Softlavender (talk) 09:06, 6 September 2018 (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.
Muse Edits Reversal: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Muse Edits Reversal: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/4/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
- Decline Bringing a matter to ArbCom should be a method of last resort, when all options have been exhausted, and the community itself can not come to a consensus. In this case, this is a content dispute that hasn’t been discussed yet on the talk page of the article, where this should first start. Use your channels of dispute resolution to see if you can gain a consensus for the edits you are looking to make. RickinBaltimore (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Decline per RickinBaltimore. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Decline Entirely premature with no other attempts at dispute resolution. Katietalk 10:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Decline there's a long list of things to try at WP:Dispute resolution. WormTT(talk) 10:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)