Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case
Requests for arbitration
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| CGI Imagery presented as location photography | 4 October 2021 | 0/0/0 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
CGI Imagery presented as location photography
Initiated by Muchandr (talk) at 00:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Muchandr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- RenatUK (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/w/index.php?title=Putin%27s_Palace&oldid=1006349062
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Putin%27s_Palace&oldid=1006359211
Statement by Muchandr
Most media files attached to the Article "Putin's Palace" are in violation of {{NoFOP-Russia}} copyright policy disallowing unauthorized reproduction of either real of computer-generated artworks/statues/architectural details of value.
Granted, a legal technicality. It is, however, principally dishonest to maintain the appearance that high-res CG imagery has anything to do with the actual photos from the site (which turns out to be in very early construction stage in the real world)
Statement by RenatUK
Statement by Robert McClenon
I wouldn't accept this case at the dispute resolution noticeboard, which is an early step in dispute resolution; and ArbCom is the last step in the resolution of disputes when all other forums have been tried and have failed. The filing editor hasn't tried to discuss the issue of the imagery either at an article talk page or at a user's talk page. Discussion is what talk pages are for. I am not sure whether there is a conduct issue, but if there is a conduct issue, it should be brought to WP:ANI; that's what WP:ANI is for. It might be helpful for the filing party first to request advice at the Teahouse before gong to WP:ANI. So there is my advice to the filing party. I don't think ArbCom needs to be advised as to whether to accept this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Deepfriedokra
- I should imagine ArbCom will decline this as the ArbCom is the venue of last resort. @Muchandr: Please read WP:DR. There are dispute resolution steps you have not tried. Well, all of them. (?) The links you provided are article edit links, not attempts to resolve the dispute. Dispute resolution requires discussion, and you've shown no evidence of that. Also, this appears to be a content dispute. Neither ArbCom nor ANI will want to settle a content dispute. Oh, I'm just repeating everything Robert said above. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- As an amateur photographer, let me say, "nice gallery". --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:09, 4 October 2021 (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.
CGI Imagery presented as location photography: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
CGI Imagery presented as location photography: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)