Wikipedia:Arbitration/Loci of dispute

This is a listing of pages that have been the (or a) locus of dispute in one or more arbitration cases as of 19 January 2016.

About and Disclaimers:

• The titles listed are the current article/page names as of October 2013 or the close of the case (whichever is more recent) they may have been different at the time of the case. Articles that have since been merged, redirected or deleted are generally not listed here. Redlinks marked † are intentional, often the deletion was a central part of the case.
• A handful of cases have been renamed, the present name is used in all cases.
• A username in a case name does not imply that user was guilty of any wrongdoing nor does it imply any association between that user and the linked page or its subject. For example the named user may be a neutral reporter or an aggrieved party.
• The information is sourced primarily taken from "Locus of dispute" findings or similar. Where none exist or this does not identify the pages in question, other findings of fact, remedies, principles, other pages linked in the decision, opening statements, submitted evidence and the case name may be used instead or additionally.
• Entries here may represent the straw that broke the camel's back rather than the heart or origin of a dispute.
• Where the dispute covers multiple pages only some may be listed here, particularly if all the pages are related to a single topic.
• Entries with an asterisk represent the topic of a dispute. In some cases the linked page was a key part of the dispute, in others the parties my not have edited it all. In the latter case
• Cases not clearly linked to one or more pages or topics on the English Wikipedia are not listed. This is usually because the case centres around an interpersonal dispute, or the use of admin tools across a wide range of unconnected articles.
• The default sort order is by page name (ignoring any asterisks or daggers), then by year (earliest first) and finally by case name.
• Each entry represents one page in one case, so pages have been the subject of multiple cases get multiple entries.
• Because there is not a 1:1 link between entries and cases, this list is not a reliable indicator of arbitration activity levels over time (there were more cases unrelated to specific articles in 2012 than 2013 for example)
• This listing is for academic interest only, the reasons for arbitration are many and varied and may relate to users rather than the articles.
• I've done my best, but accuracy is not guaranteed. Updates and corrections are more than welcome but please remember that what forms the locus of the case can sometimes be subjective.