Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:32, 26 September 2012 view sourceElen of the Roads (talk | contribs)16,638 edits →Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/1/0/6): decline← Previous edit Revision as of 15:43, 26 September 2012 view source Hersfold non-admin (talk | contribs)1,126 edits →Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/2/0/5): acceptNext edit →
Line 132: Line 132:
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''


=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/2/0/5) === === Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/2/0/4) ===
* '''Accept'''. While this does not appear to be a particularly complex dispute at first glance, the fact that the administrators who have reviewed it at AN/I and elsewhere have not been able to resolve it suggests either that there may be some nuances that require more careful examination or that the administrator corps is uncertain of how best to approach the matter. In either case, we should be able to assist in finding a resolution. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]</sup> 12:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC) * '''Accept'''. While this does not appear to be a particularly complex dispute at first glance, the fact that the administrators who have reviewed it at AN/I and elsewhere have not been able to resolve it suggests either that there may be some nuances that require more careful examination or that the administrator corps is uncertain of how best to approach the matter. In either case, we should be able to assist in finding a resolution. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]</sup> 12:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
* <s>'''Accept'''. Kirill sums it up well. ] (] '''·''' ]) 12:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)</s> ok '''hold''' for the time being as it looks like discussion is ongoing. ] (] '''·''' ]) 09:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC) * <s>'''Accept'''. Kirill sums it up well. ] (] '''·''' ]) 12:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)</s> ok '''hold''' for the time being as it looks like discussion is ongoing. ] (] '''·''' ]) 09:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Line 142: Line 142:
** ...And it looks like he will be making one, so we'll see what he has to say. ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 18:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC) ** ...And it looks like he will be making one, so we'll see what he has to say. ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 18:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
*** '''@CartoonDiablo''': The Arbitration Committee will not rule on whether or not the table/image/content should be present in the article. What we're interested in is whether this is an unresolvable dispute due to the conduct of involved editors, or if there is a reasonable chance this could be resolved at a lower level of dispute resolution. Could your provide your views on that front? Additionally, you state that you're willing to start over on the table/image/whatever, but you do not seem to be willing to step down from the issue, despite a number of your colleages appearing to believe that the inclusion of this information in any form is inappropriate. Is this an accurate assessment? ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 20:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC) *** '''@CartoonDiablo''': The Arbitration Committee will not rule on whether or not the table/image/content should be present in the article. What we're interested in is whether this is an unresolvable dispute due to the conduct of involved editors, or if there is a reasonable chance this could be resolved at a lower level of dispute resolution. Could your provide your views on that front? Additionally, you state that you're willing to start over on the table/image/whatever, but you do not seem to be willing to step down from the issue, despite a number of your colleages appearing to believe that the inclusion of this information in any form is inappropriate. Is this an accurate assessment? ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 20:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
**** '''Accept''' to examine the conduct of involved users, particularly CartoonDiablo. While I can understand why Elen and Phil are pushing for something else, it seems clear that this ''has'' been discussed several times, and yet nothing's been done. If the community were able to deal with this, they probably would have by now. As it stands, I'm seeing what looks like ] and refusal-to-drop-the-stick issues from CartoonDiablo that may merit some form of restriction better-suited towards correcting said behavior than a simple block. ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 15:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
*Also awaiting statements, especially from CartoonDiablo. My preliminary view is that I am hoping that this dispute can be resolved short of arbitration in the near future, but otherwise it appears there may be grounds for a case. Probably the most relevant principles involved can be found in last year's ''Henri Coanda'' decision ] and ]. ] (]) 19:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC) *Also awaiting statements, especially from CartoonDiablo. My preliminary view is that I am hoping that this dispute can be resolved short of arbitration in the near future, but otherwise it appears there may be grounds for a case. Probably the most relevant principles involved can be found in last year's ''Henri Coanda'' decision ] and ]. ] (]) 19:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
*Awaiting a statement from CartoonDiablo. ] (]) 22:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC) *Awaiting a statement from CartoonDiablo. ] (]) 22:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:43, 26 September 2012

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Psychotherapies   24 September 2012 {{{votes}}}
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024
Shortcuts

About this page

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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.


File an arbitration request


Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, 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-l@lists.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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.


Psychotherapies

Initiated by Tijfo098 (talk) at 09:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Involved parties

This list is incomplete; you can help by adding missing items.
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Tijfo098

I'm asking ArbCom to help with the behavioral elements of a protracted dispute centered on three articles: Cognitive behavioral therapy, Psychoanalysis, and Family therapy. Content-wise, the main element of this dispute is the insertion in all three articles of a table made by CartoonDiablo. The dispute has been raging since June 2012 at least.

By all appearances, CartoonDiablo has edited tendentiously in this dispute reinserting the table multiple times in the various articles despite objections by others. More recently he has turned the table into a picture (of the table) in order to circumvent the prior consensus achieved at DRN, as noted here by a volunteer . CartoonDiablo also wikilawyered over the policy/guideline distinction and has been WP:FORUMSHOPing, every time looking for a new venue after his arguments were found unconvincing by previously uninvolved editors and dispute resolution volunteers. He has also disputed the closure of the DRN discussion(s), exasperating some volunteers. See the DRN talk page discussion .

It appears that by his dogged persistence, CartoonDiablo managed to drive off most other editors who had objected. Or at least they gave up arguing with him. Widescreen however has edit warred over the insertion of a POV tag over the table. (see ANI and ANEW reports) Widescreen's communication style has not helped his case at all; this was pointed out to him in the last ANI discussion. After that, CartoonDiablo editwarred with Snowded over the same stuff .

I have not taken part in the content discussion itself and I haven't formed an opinion on who is right about the content, but I have commented on the behavioral aspects in other fora, like ANI. Unfortunately, the nature of ANI discussions, filled with digressions aplenty, made it impossible for admins to act on anything besides the edit warring. Last man standing is not how content dispute resolution should work, I hope. I think ArbCom can easily stem the silliness with one or two topic bans. Given the WP:IDHT nature of the behavioral aspects of the dispute, I don't think RfC/U(s) would make any progress in solving any of this dispute, but would just prolong it. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Minor update: Now that SGCM mentioned there were three DRNs, I managed to find the missing (middle) one and added it to the list of attempts to solve the dispute. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by czarkoff

I'm not sure whether I am indeed a party to this dispute, as my participation is mostly limited to DRN cases (with the only exception of this edit IIRC). Regarding the case: though I regard CartoonDiablo's behaviour as gaming the system and wikilawyering, I don't think that the violations are severe enough for any administrative actions. In my opinion, the whole thing should be hammered in content dispute resolution. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Snowded

I'm not sure its an Arbcom case. What we have here is one editor who is on a mission to promote CBT over other approaches. In pursuit of this they have created a table and inserted in many articles. Any independent editor who looked at in on the DR case said it was OR/Synth and inappropriate but that was not accepted by CartoonDiablo who simply either edit warred, then argued s/he had used an image not a table, and is now arguing s/he has created a better image. What was needed was for the admins who looked at the edit waring to check some of the history. Reverting an editor can be edit waring, but when that editor has been through DR and has been rejected its simply enforcing a community decision. Whatever it's evident that CartoonDiablo will not give up his/her solitary mission but I would have thought there is more than enough discussion on this for an admin to simply review and advise him/her of what synthesis/OR is about and the need to get consensus before inserting controversial material ----Snowded 10:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTorq We have had three DRs on this issue which involved extensive discussion of the content issues around the table/image. All editors concluded the table/image should be replaced with text. We have an editor here who will use every channel to pursue a solitary goal in the hope that other editors simply give up. ----Snowded 09:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Widescreen

I'm from german Misplaced Pages. Thats why my english is not the best. Initially I have to say, that I haven't any experience with the ARBcom. I know the german de:Misplaced Pages:Schiedsgericht. I was never involved in such a proceed, but I know some jugedment of them. To cut the matter short: I'm against any contentual judgement of such a instance. It's improbable that any member of the arbcom has enogh knowledge about psychotherapy research to decide the verdict. If I can, I would refuse a jugdement by the arbcom.

So far. The conflict starded with the adding of a table, wich was selfmade by user CartoonDiablo. He added it in two articles. 1 Psycholanalysis, 2 Cognitive behavioral therapy. I reverted these alterations because it was clear to me, that the table represents the results of one study respectively govermental survey. That was not ballanced, because in psychotherapy research exists a lot of studies like this. Most of them with other results. It's one specification of this studie it trys to make a overview by select special findings in psychotherapy research. The study exclude other results who have a high relevance if you want to assess a psychothearpeutic treatment. The study itself is o.k. It's a reliable source. But if you mention only one study, the ballance is destroyed. It's not neccessary to cite these special survey because it recieves minor attantion by scientiffic circles. There are much better overwievs than this superficial one.

I try to explain this to CartoonDiablo but he doesn't understand that point and some edtiwars beginns. It was pure luck some other users gain attention on the conflict and also declared the problem to CartoonDiablo.

Than a unprecedented POV-Fight by CartoonDiablo beginns. 1. He circumvented the DRN-result what sayes the table should turn into prose by change the table into a picture. 2. Than he puts the picture back in the article. And wirtes some prose, which was mainly wrong 3. Than another editwar beginns. And CartoonDiablo puts the picture and the wrong prose in another articl, Family therapy. 4. Now other users generously try to reverted the prose and the table out of articles. I was blocked once for a week. 5. Than in the next DRN CartoonDiablo trys to change the picture by add other results of other studies. Whereas the initally table was selfmade, you can't find this table in the survey. It is WP:OR. Now he trys to include more studies in his table to rescue it.

All in all CartoonDiablo trys to overstate the survey. Thats POV as POV can. The argumentation of CartoonDiablo is awful. He asserted wrong things everybody with a minor knowledge of psychotheray research knows. The last POV-act was to add the picture of the table and the wrong prose in an article about psychotherapy research .

As far as I am concerned, CartoonDiabolo should be blocked. He doesn't understand the main principes of wikipedia. But the main reason is, his behavior after he was confronted with his lack of knowledge of the issue by other users. That wasn't serious. And got only one aim: enforce his own POV.

--WSC 12:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

One thing about the blame, my communication wasn't helpfull. I claim I know a lot about psychotherapy reserch. I'm not an real expert like a psychotherapy researcher, but I know enough to estimate such edits. I try to explain this to CartoonDiablo, but he won't accept the basic things I explain here above. There were no chance to have a target-aimed conversation. CartoonDiabolo always asserted things which were partially bloodcurdling nonsense. I'm also an experienced wikipedian. And I had such kinds of discussion already previously in this field in de:wp. There's no chance to have a real exchange with those kind of users. I had to repeat my arguments now 1. talk psychoanalysis, 2. talk CBT, 3. 1st DRN, 4. 2nd DRN 5. 3rd DRN, 6. 1st. noticeboard/incidents 7. 2nd noticeboard/incidents and now on an arbcom-case. I feel like a record. This all just because this user have an minor understandig of this research area and try to push this lousy study in different articles. A lot of other authors are also involved. Of course everyone has the right to be listend. Especially when it's about a putative POV-case. But I think everybody have to ask themself also if he really got the knowledge to dispute such thinks.

--WSC 20:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by So God created Manchester

Like Czarkoff, I'm an uninvolved editor that volunteers on DRN, and was involved in the second and third DRN requests as a third party editor. There have been concerns that CartoonDiablo has been tendentiously editing the Cognitive behavioral therapy, Psychoanalysis, and Family therapy articles to promote cognitive behaviour therapy and criticise the competing approaches, psychoanalysis and family therapy. Although the survey he cites is considered reliable, he highlights the results of the study in a way that is neither neutral or balanced, by using a table and image that gives the survey undue representation to promote a point view. The consensus was that the information should only be conveyed as prose, a consensus that, at least among the third party editors, was established in the second DRN case and further reinforced in the third. The source can be mentioned, but it must be done in a way that adheres to Misplaced Pages's core principle of neutrality.

I've further summarised the background of the dispute here. I don't think ArbCom is necessary at this point, but the editor should be encouraged to drop the stick. Although consensus can change over time, perpetuating a dispute can reach the point where it is no longer constructive. --SGCM (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Nobody Ent and Beestra that bringing the dispute to RfC or MedCom first is a better option. There have been some conduct issues, but it's still primarily a content dispute.--SGCM (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

@CartoonDiablo. The concerns raised in the DRN cases have been about neutrality, not the formatting or content of the image or table.
@Hersfold. The information could be included as prose. The source is reliable. The major complaint in the DRN cases, as I recall, was the undue representation of the claims of the source, which favours cognitive behaviour therapy, by highlighting it with a large image or table. Articles should describe different points of view, but they should be fairly represented and given due weight.--SGCM (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Nobody Ent

Content dispute, should be RFC'd before being brought to ArbCom. Nobody Ent 22:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

@Kirill, it is not the mandate of administrators to solve content disputes -- it's the mandate of the community. Failure to take action at ANI only means no admin action was appropriate, not that the community exhausted all means of dispute resolution (as explained far more eloquently by Beestra). Nobody Ent 12:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Beetstra

First, thank you AGK, SilkTork, Hersfold, NewYorkBrad and Elen of the Roads to avoid to repeat the recent case of railroading an editor by being overly greedy in accepting the case without waiting for statements. Unfortunately, we are only one accept vote short of accepting the case anyway, again without giving a decent time to all parties, and especially accused parties, to respond to the case (as I expected in a comment after the resolution of a previous case, 24 hours may be too short, editors may be away for a weekend, but that clearly does not matter in a case which is so pressing that a resolution is needed soon - it was mentioned there that that was a once off ...). Maybe the clue is in Hersfold's remark (though I am sure there are other things arbitrators can do than just fiddle their thumbs).

Regarding the need for a resolution, I do not see any attempt for an RfC to get outside input, I do not see any attempt to get mediation. The accused editor does not have any community sanctions regarding events that lead to this case, neither adminstrative sanctions were applied to the editor (e.g. the block log regarding events relating to this case). The community is far from exhausted in their methods to resolve the issue. The arbitration committee is not for the resolution of all disputes, it is there as a final step in the whole dispute resolution process, where all other steps have failed. Here, the last step until now is Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard, and as stated there "What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled...." (my emphasis). Get sufficient input in an RfC and resolve the issue in that way. If that doesn't work then independent editors can discuss whether community sanctions will resolve the issue.

As suggested by all but the filing party (and maybe except Widescreen): there seems hardly need for a case. --Dirk Beetstra 06:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC) Expanded. --Dirk Beetstra 07:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Casliber. --Dirk Beetstra 10:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

@Elen: thank you, but you don't have to inform me of that. I guess you know which part of the community should be addressed. --Dirk Beetstra 15:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by CartoonDiablo

The main issue is over an image (previously a chart admittedly with errors) that talks about the effectiveness of three psychotherapies. Based on the studies mentioned prior in dispute resolution, this image represents (or intends to represent) the scientific consensus for the effectiveness of the three methods.

There are two objections over this, one over the content of the image (the science or consensus of it) and one over the format. To address the latter, the format seems clear and unproblematic, it has been used for other images about the same topic (and even some tables). This leaves the problem of scientific consensus; based on the studies, the science displayed in the image is backed up by the US and French governments and is, to the best of my knowledge, the scientific consensus surrounding the topic of the image.

I agree the dispute over it has been long and drawn out but I think the image is important for representing the science of the topic and should stay since no text can summarize the consensus in whole. If it's erroneous and not the consensus, then I am willing to start over and get it pre-approved via consensus before putting it into an article.

The other suggestion I have is if it's difficult to culminate all the research for all three psychotheries, to have it split into three different images, one for each psychotherapy. As an image(s), each can be updated if the consensus around them changes. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

@Hersfold Yeah I'd say the assessment is accurate and unfortunately it looks like it'll be unresolved unless a ruling can be given one way or another. I can see reasons for changing the image but the reasons to exclude it don't work especially with the examples I've given. The only real way for me to be convinced to remove the image is a ruling here or on third opinion/RFC. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Mirokado

Looking at CartoonDiablo's links discussing format, there is an example of an image of a graph, clearly nothing to do with the format of a table, and a link to an article containing two wiki tables and no images. I see no justification whatsoever for an image of a textual table, this must be replaced by a wikitable for accessibility reasons if the presentation of this data as a table has consensus (no comment about that). I don't see the origin of the "little or no effect" entries in the original table linked in the media file: the wiki table would also provide a better opportunity to clarify the sources of the information. --Mirokado (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/2/0/4)

  • Accept. While this does not appear to be a particularly complex dispute at first glance, the fact that the administrators who have reviewed it at AN/I and elsewhere have not been able to resolve it suggests either that there may be some nuances that require more careful examination or that the administrator corps is uncertain of how best to approach the matter. In either case, we should be able to assist in finding a resolution. Kirill  12:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Accept. Kirill sums it up well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC) ok hold for the time being as it looks like discussion is ongoing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Awaiting statements by the other disputants, as well as any observations and comments by uninvolved editors. AGK 13:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • While we won't get involved in the appropriateness of the table in question, we can look into the behaviour of those in dispute over its inclusion. However, if the parties, CartoonDiablo in particular, agree to accept today's recommendation to convert the information into prose, then the matter will be resolved, and I don't think there would be a need to open an ArbCom case. Awaiting statements. SilkTork 14:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    • There appears to be a consensus of views that what is required here is a RfC on the table data rather than an ArbCom case. And, as Elen indicates, if anyone does not follow the consensus of that RfC and/or edit wars at any point then any uninvolved admin could use their judgement to fully protect the affected articles and/or block those editors causing disruption. I think it might be as well to keep this request open, perhaps in a collapsed box, until an RfC is satisfactorily concluded, just in case things don't work out. SilkTork 08:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Awaiting statements, particularly from CartoonDiablo. My initial thoughts are that if CD doesn't agree to the recommendation SilkTork refers to, a case may be in order per Kirill; if he does, then hopefully the issue will be moot and the Committee can go back to twiddling our thumbs again. Hersfold non-admin 17:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Noting that the discussion at DRN appears to have been closed, with CartoonDiablo apparently intent on taking the discussion to another forum. I'm leaning further towards accepting now as a result, however will still withhold an actual vote until we hear from CD (or it becomes clear he intends not to make a statement). I've left him another reminder indicating that several of us are waiting to hear from him. Hersfold non-admin 18:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    • ...And it looks like he will be making one, so we'll see what he has to say. Hersfold non-admin 18:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
      • @CartoonDiablo: The Arbitration Committee will not rule on whether or not the table/image/content should be present in the article. What we're interested in is whether this is an unresolvable dispute due to the conduct of involved editors, or if there is a reasonable chance this could be resolved at a lower level of dispute resolution. Could your provide your views on that front? Additionally, you state that you're willing to start over on the table/image/whatever, but you do not seem to be willing to step down from the issue, despite a number of your colleages appearing to believe that the inclusion of this information in any form is inappropriate. Is this an accurate assessment? Hersfold non-admin 20:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Accept to examine the conduct of involved users, particularly CartoonDiablo. While I can understand why Elen and Phil are pushing for something else, it seems clear that this has been discussed several times, and yet nothing's been done. If the community were able to deal with this, they probably would have by now. As it stands, I'm seeing what looks like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and refusal-to-drop-the-stick issues from CartoonDiablo that may merit some form of restriction better-suited towards correcting said behavior than a simple block. Hersfold non-admin 15:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Also awaiting statements, especially from CartoonDiablo. My preliminary view is that I am hoping that this dispute can be resolved short of arbitration in the near future, but otherwise it appears there may be grounds for a case. Probably the most relevant principles involved can be found in last year's Henri Coanda decision here and here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Awaiting a statement from CartoonDiablo. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Per Hersfold - CartoonDiablo, are you prepared to participate in a community process (DRN, RfC, Mediation.....) and accept the outcome whatever it is. Same question applies to the other parties, although several have already indicated a willingness to accept the outcome of a dispute resolution process. I'm still not particularly seeing anything that warrants an arbitration case at the moment - if it gets to a situation where one editor persists in edit warring against consensus, the remedy is routine admin action. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline. Lets have a content RfC so the community can make a consensus on this content. If anyone makes an edit war while that's going on, the usual administrator remedies are available. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Accept pretty much per Kirill. Courcelles 23:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline - I'd prefer that a content based Request for Content is attempted, and then if the dispute still isn't resolved, we could accept the case. However, to reiterate Hersfold's comment, the Arbitration Committee isn't going to make a decision on whether the table should be included or not, as content decisions are outside our remit. PhilKnight (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)