This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Euryalus (talk | contribs) at 19:13, 6 December 2017 (→List of current NHL captains and alternate captains Dispute: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ARC

Requests for arbitration

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

List of current NHL captains and alternate captains Dispute

Initiated by Fhsig13 (talk) at 21:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Fhsig13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• GoodDay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nurmsook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring

Statement by Fhsig13

Hello, I am an avid Vancouver Canucks fan, that noticed a mistake on the page (that'd I previously fixed), that being that Bo Horvat was not included as an Alternate Captain. I provided sources to show that he wore the "A" on his jersey in rotation with teamates Christopher Tanev, Brandon Sutter, Alexander Edler, and Michael Del Zotto between last season ( the 2016-17 NHL season) and now, however the two editors I stated insist that last season is not relevant, however I believe that Bo Horvat deserves inclusion on the list, on the grounds that he has served as an alternate captain in rotation since it's last permanent assignment, (Alexandre Burrows, ~2009-10 NHL season). I have made this all very clear in the article's talk page, however these two and User:Ravenswing, whom I did not report as he did not make any reversions to the content in question), insisted upon starting an edit war. I thank the arbitrators in advance for their help in resolving this matter. (P.S. I did report them for edit-warring, however the admins found them not guilty despite a long list of diffs proving it so). Fhsig13 (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I have tried everything suggested here and on my talk page, however Nurmsook and GoodDay simply will not listen to my point of view and the "no violation" verdict was invalidly placed by an inexperienced Admin, as I clearly showed more than 3 reverts within a day (Dec 1 by GoodDay).I urge you to please reconsider your verdict on hearing the matter, as these two despicable gentlemen insist on having everything THEIR petty way, and it is ruining an otherwise valuable article. Thank you, Fhsig13 (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam, @GoodDay I am asking politely that we all please refrain from further disputing until the Arbitrators review this request. I will be more than happy to hold discussions on the subject with you all at that time, however this exchange is pointless until then.Thank you, Fhsig13 (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Thank you for your input. I have tried some such things, but to no avail, thus I have gone to the last resort possible. Fhsig13 (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay

Recommend that Arbcom reject the request. I don't think I need to explain why. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

No objections, Floq. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Nurmsook

At this point I would argue that the user appears to be abusing Misplaced Pages processes. There was a pretty clear dismissal of Fhsig13's claim that GoodDay and I engaged in edit warring, which the user is now claiming was an incorrect finding. This user has escalated this far beyond what is necessary; Fhsig13 hasn't even engaged in an WP:RFC, and has ignored the current consensus at the talk page of the page in question. Multiple experienced users and admins have now commented that the user in question has not used their available options in engaging the community. I request that this be rejected. – Nurmsook! 22:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Floq

@GoodDay:, I'm trying to save everyone some time and get the filer to withdraw. Since you've already commented, any objection to just roundfiling this thing before a clerk or arb comments? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, user does not wish to withdraw. I obviously recommend declining the case, not all attempts at dispute resolution have been tried. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I have explained to User:Fhsig13 on his talk page that if he continues to behave like this (his most recent post here, and his most recent post on the article talk page), I will block him. I suggest that the "friendly advice to a newbie" phase is over, and the "knock it off now or else" phase has begun. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Softlavender

Fhsig13, you are a very inexperienced Misplaced Pages editor, so it's somewhat understandable that you would make this mistake, but the Arbitration Committee, despite its name, does not at all handle this type of thing. What you want instead is to work things out on the Talk page of the relevant article(s), until a consensus is reached. You can also post a neutral request for addition input on WT:WikiProject Ice Hockey and Talk:National Hockey League so that other knowledgeable editors may join in. If after a consensus is clear you are still not satisfied, you could attempt one of the forms of Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution. Examples would be the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard; or starting a neutral brief Request For Comment; or asking for a Third Opinion. -- Softlavender (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Fhsig13: Anyone can see from your edit history that you haven't tried any of the things I have suggested. Please read my post again carefully and take whichever course of action you prefer, because ArbCom is going to reject this case, since it is not within their purview. Softlavender (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki

This case should be declined.

The arbitration committee generally does not involve itself in content disputes; WP:DRN or WP:MEDCOM would be the correct forum for that. As far as any behavioral concerns, I see no plausible case for any action at this time, including WP:BOOMERANG sanctions. There's also an argument that List of current NHL captains and alternate captains should not exist at all, but that would be discussed at WP:AfD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by MRD2014

Arbcom should decline this. Way too early in the dispute resolution process. Arbcom cases are a last resort for disputes. —MRD2014  02:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Mendaliv

I needn't repeat what my learned colleagues above have stated about this case request, other than that it should be declined.

I will, however, take this opportunity to repeat my recent concerns with the Committee's lack of a sensible means of speedily declining case requests like these, which are improper on the face of the request. In this case, we have a case request that solely requests arbitration of a content dispute. In other recent case requests, we have had ripeness issues, again, blatantly apparent on the face of the request. Such case requests are not merely wastes of Committee time and resources, but can be used to intimidate and harass named parties—until fairly recently, I would have probably spent an hour or two in a panic researching Committee procedure and standards simply to respond to a case request as a named party, simply because of unfamiliarity with the Committee. Please consider some means of addressing this perennial problem. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 08:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Euryalus: Respectfully, I've not set out to propose a complete procedural system, but merely the general framework of one. The "risk of abuse" concern is one that is both easily addressed and, frankly, the benefits outweigh this risk. We do not need a full-dress accept/decline vote for case requests which are inappropriate for arbitration on the face of the request—that is, without requiring any research into the background of the dispute or clicking on any links, but merely from reading the request itself. As I've stated before, the procedure may take the form of delisting the request and requiring it to be amended before refiling. The incoming subpage/transclusion system makes this a trivial change. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 12:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Ravenswing

While I don't need to be telling Arbcom its business, I wouldn't even categorize this as so much of an edit dispute than that of a very inexperienced editor convinced he's right and that therefore everyone else must be wrong, and on a startlingly minor issue to boot. If anything, a gentle nudge towards mentoring programs to better inform him of how Misplaced Pages's collaborative environment works would be A Good Thing. Ravenswing 14:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Only: Seems, obviously, like his notion of an "experienced" admin would be one who let him have his way. I'm coming around to think that my earlier notion of a "gentle nudge" should be replaced by a trout slap. Ravenswing 07:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Only

This is probably pointless since we're just a few votes from declining and I wasn't planning to waste my own time here, but I need to defend myself. First...I've been called inexperienced. As an administrator since 2006 with over 30,000 edits to my name, I'm curious as to what is expected by this user to be considered an "experienced" administrator. Second...my 3RR decline was perfectly valid. GoodDay made 4 reverts that day... 3 to the work of others... then 1 to his own revert canceling that 3rd revert. So, only 2 reverts to be considered for the 3RR rule. This is slowly going from many experienced users (except me: I'm inexperienced) trying to help a newer user out to a question about competence. only (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13

@Euryalus: We actually do have current procedures for clerks along those lines, where a clerk can remove a frivolous request with only one arbitrator's approval. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Procedures#When_to_take_action. In practice, that's never actually done. ~ Rob₁₃ 13:29, 6 December 2017 (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.

Clerk notes

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

List of current NHL captains and alternate captains Dispute: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/7/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Decline as premature. The discussion at Talk:List of current NHL captains and alternate captains#Canucks Alternates has barely had an opportunity reach a consensus and the edit warring report was concluded as "no violation". Other forms of dispute resolution have yet to be exhausted; a mandatory prerequisite for ArbCom cases. Mkdw 22:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• Decline - Fhsig13, there's some good advice on your talkpage about alternative dispute resolution options. I understand what you're arguing about Bo Horvat but the way to resolve the issue is through discussion with other editors working on that article, and then through things like an RfC or the dispute resolution noticeboard. In passing, agree with some commenters above that this will also be a speedy decline - hopefully we get enough Arbs to vote in short order, so this doesn't drag on. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Mendaliv: a speedy-decline would be useful on occasions like this, but there'd be a risk of misuse - one advantage of a 15-person committee is the range of views it represents; if we could close case requests with (say) net four oppose after 24 hours, we'd risk excluding some valid views. The ideal solution would be Committee members who were online more often, or more readily marked inactive if not around for a few days. Maybe we should have asked the incoming arbs about this in their candidate questions. Ah well, next year. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Mendaliv: noted, let's see if the new system for case requests delivers that worthwhile outcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• @BU Rob13: True, but applicability is a bit limited - obviously requests that are simply vandalism get removed already, but for example this request contains a "genuine dispute resolution grievance" - just not one that needs to be heard here. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Decline per above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• Decline, and please take the good adivce you've been given here and on your talk page. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• Decline per others above, who have given you some "A" quality advice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• Decline per above. Doug Weller talk 18:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• Decline DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)