Requests for arbitration

Initiated by Xtremedood (talk) at 01:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Xtremedood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• D4iNa4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rhododendrites (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Capitals00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )

• [1] - D4iNa4
• [2] - Rhododendrites
• [3] - FreeatlastChitchat
• [4] - Capitals00

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• [5] - Early discussion, starting in May 2015.
• [6] - Discussion that was started on since November 2015.
• [7] - most recent discussion, where the editors were asked to engage, and they did not effectively engage. Consensus was established, and the editors began minimally engaging after. Xtremedood (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xtremedood

Discussion on who and who should not be included in this list started all the way back in May 2015. Capitals00 and D4iNa4, were requested several times to engage, however, they did not effectively engage throughout this period. When consensus was finally reached in mid-January over-here [8] it seemed to have been established. However, shortly after both D4iNa4 and Capitals00 began a campaign of edit-warring and reverts. Xtremedood (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by D4iNa4

Consensus is at talk page, clearly against Xtremedood and his obsession to keep enforcing his personal views is so prevalent, that it is really wasting our time. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rhododendrites

My initial reaction to being notified is that this does not seem to me a situation that requires ArbCom. It's a content dispute: are particular sources good enough to include certain names in the List of converts to Hinduism from Islam. Both sides have edit warred and participation in discussion has been inconsistent, but it's not intractable and there are several steps I think it could go through before ArbCom, certainly. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clearer about where, specifically, the current dispute is.

1. I got involved last June, when Xtremedood was involved in a dispute with Delibzr (and OccultZone sock). Xtremedood wanted to remove several names that OZ wanted to add.
2. I looked at the contested entries and sources, fixed/added some things, and, following discussion on the talk page, came to the conclusion that about 1/3 of the contested names were rightly removed, a few were clearly appropriate to include, and others had sourcing issues but should be discussed before removing.
3. Several months later, in November, Xtremedood removed the latter group. D4iNa4 promptly reverted and they edit warred for a couple weeks.
4. Xtremedood went to DRN in December. D4iNa4 did not participate.
5. Also in December, I started the section "Starting over, and breaking it down", creating separate threads to summarize issues and discuss each controversial name.
6. In January, after DRN closed with no action, FreeatlastChitchat again removed the names.
7. Based on my previous evaluations, I added summaries to each of the talk page subsections and, based on that, restored a couple of the names. It was at this point that I feel there was some weak sense of consensus -- not that discussion was closed, but that the names in the list were justified and that if others were to be re-added, better sources were needed.
8. On February 17 D4iNa4 restored three of the names with additional sources. The additional sources were challenged on the talk page by FreeatlastChitchat and defended by D4iNa4 and Capitals00. I have not yet formed an opinion about the sources myself, but would probably default to inclusion without a compelling argument as to their unreliability.

So there's a disagreement about sources that hasn't even really gone anywhere since it started a few weeks ago. A few reasons were given for why they're not reliable, there were responses, and that's about the end of it.

In general I appreciate Xtremedood's frustration at D4iNa4's not-so-enthusiastic approach to discussing subjects he/she is willing to edit war over, but D4iNa4 did add sources recently and hasn't been entirely uncommunicative. So, again, I don't think ArbCom is in order, but for crying out loud stop edit warring and use the talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FreeatlastChitchat

Statement by Capitals00

Statement by uninvolved Softlavender

This is not an ArbCom issue at this point. No other venues have been utilized yet. Edit-warring should be dealt with at

Statement by uninvolved Robert McClenon

It appears that the persons identified in this list are or were either in India or in Pakistan. If so,

User:Callanec - I agree that either mediation or meditation might be appropriate. Meditation should be in accordance with the editor's own selected spiritual tradition and might help one to see the value of collaborative editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2016 (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.

Clerk notes

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

Converts to Hinduism: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/9/0/0>

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

• Decline would recommend RfC for protracted content issues. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. At least please try an RFC first. Gamaliel (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline as premature. As above, an RfC is the right place to start here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per above. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline I'd recommend a well publicised RFC (followed by
  WP:ARBIPA discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Decline A good faith request, but it would be better to try RfC first . DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline, agreeing with my colleagues above. Doug Weller talk 17:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline Courcelles (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Xtremedood (talk) at 02:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Xtremedood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Capitals00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )
• Ghatus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [9] - Capitals00
• [10] - Ghatus

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• [11] - Survey in which the majority agree that Bangladesh should be included in the results section as a victor.
• [12] - Discussion which concluded the wording.
• [13], [14], examples of revisions by Capitals00 after consensus was reached.
• [15] - Request for mediation between disagreement between Capitals00 and I, which was declined due to Capitals00 not responding.
• [16] - Follow-up on Capitals00 not responding to mediation.
• [17] - Report of Capitals00 at the Edit-Warring noticeboard, where I was told to take this to arbitration by the deciding admin. Xtremedood (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xtremedood

Consensus, way back in July 2015, was that Bangladesh should be included in the results section, see here [18]. Continued disputes surrounding the wording were solved in early December, 2015, over here [19]. Revisions, contrary to consensus and disruptive edits by Capitals00 began in mid-to-late December 2015, as seen here [20], with non-effective rationale for its revision. A third opinion, was requested by me, between the dispute between Capitals00 and I. However, for some reason, user Ghatus commented and the third opinion was not made (due to third opinions being reserved for disputes between 2 users). The response may be seen over here [21]. A suggestion that mediation should occur was made by the third opinion poster. I then requested mediation here [22], however, it was rejected due to Capitals00 not responding. I then reported Capitals00 to the edit-warring noticeboard, however it was declined, this time due to it not breaking the 3rr. However, a suggestion of arbitration was made over here [23]. I am now seeking arbitration, as to whether or not Bangladesh should be included in the results section of the article. Xtremedood (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capitals00

Statement by Ghatus

Everyone is requested to visit the Talk Page of the mentioned article. The consensus is against Xtremedood by 4 to 2 and all the three sources are against Xtremedood. He has provided no

• Please explain why you didn't try
  WP:AE first? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Decline. Try
  WP:RFC. Gamaliel (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Decline
  WP:AE is down the hall and to the left ;) I think this is the second recent example of mixing up a case request with an AE request; maybe we need to improve the instructions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Decline per Gamaliel. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline conduct issues can be dealt with by making a request at
  RFC. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Decline AE is the appropriate place for this; I agree with Opabinia regalis that we probably need clearer instructions of how to ask for intervention in problems like this. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline should be at
  WP:AE. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Decline per above. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline also per above. Doug Weller talk 17:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per Opabinia. Courcelles (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]