Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#List of music considered the worst{{anchor|Inclusion of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band on List of music considered the worst[edit]}}|List of music considered the worst{{anchor|Inclusion of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band on List of music considered the worst[edit]}}]]   24 May 2019 0/8/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 7 June 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
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024
Motion name Date posted
Block of Rp2006 18 June 2024

List of music considered the worst

Initiated by ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) at 04:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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. Sergecross73 msg me 10:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 14:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thryduulf (talk) 08:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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. Thryduulf (talk) 10:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Pldx1

I don't think that a full case is required to include 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... Pldx1 (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 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". --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: It wasn't using FRS and I didn't see cross postings to VPP, and/or AN. And from my reading of the 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, 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. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: I think we are arguing different points. I do not disagree when you say that 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. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @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 Discussions on matters that have a wide impact and Discussions on proposed policies, guidelines and procedures points and not 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. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

—Newyorkbrad (talk • contribs) 11:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Redrose64

@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: Brandt Luke Zorn; Zubin12; NinjaRobotPirate; MJL; Argento Surfer; Doniago; Chess; Mathglot; ARR8; and 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 initiated at 21:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC) and listed on RFC/MEDIA at 22:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC), Legobot removed the rfc tag after thirty days and consequently the RfC was delisted at 22:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC). It was then taken to WP:ANRFC with this batch of requests. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

I declined a case request at 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 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

List of music considered the worst: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • @Electricburst1996: Please notify the parties in this request. You can use the template {{subst:arbcom notice|Inclusion of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band on List of music considered the worst}} to do so. – bradv🍁 04:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. – bradv🍁 04:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shortened the request title from Inclusion of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band on List of music considered the worst. AGK ■ 08:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @QEDK: You are at 571 words now. I won't refactor your last comment, but you have no further words so you are aware. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: A majority of active arbitrators have voted to decline this case. This request will be removed when it is 48 hours old. – bradv🍁 19:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of music considered the worst: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Decline. The closure at 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.) AGK ■ 08:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline There is nothing for the committee to address at this time. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per above. Katietalk 12:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. SilkTork (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Mkdw talk 17:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, per my colleagues. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't like it that much, so.... oh wait, not how arbcom works :) Late, but, decline per above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also a late decline, per above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=899039262"