Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-08/Blood+

Where is the dispute?
Blood+

Tangentially involved:


 * Cartoon Network (United States)
 * Adult Swim

See also discussion between DylanIloveYou and Argel1200: User_talk:Argel1200 User_talk:DylanIloveYou

Who is involved?

 * User:Argel1200
 * User:Collectonian

Tangentially involved:


 * User:DylanIloveYou (now: User:IShadowed)

What is the dispute?
Issue is whether to say that the Blood+ Anime TV series aired in the US on the Cartoon Network (hereafter: CN) or Adult Swim (hereafter: AS).

AS started as a programming block on CN but was later split off (on March 28th, 2005) as a separate network for rating (and by implication branding) purposes. Since then, the Nielsen Ratings for CN and AS have been separate and e.g. going by the Turner broadcasting websites they have been treated as two separate brands.

Blood+ aired in 2007 -- after the split. FOr this reason I would like to see the Cartoon Network references changed to Adult Swim.

I think the pros and cons to using Adult Swim are (generally speaking-- i.e. not limited to Blood+):


 * Pro: If someone wants to look up Nielsen Ratings for the time period that a show aired on then they need to look up the ratings for Adult Swim. Using CN is thus misleading/ambiguous.
 * Pro: DVD and Blu-Rays of Anime aired on Adult Swim are often marketed as such (e.g. a sticker saying "As seen on Adult Swim).
 * Con: Cable boxes, satellite receivers, TV guides, etc. usually just list the channel as Cartoon Network. This is because AS shares time with CN and most TV guide listings only allow for one network per channel.
 * Counter: this can be addressed in the Adult Swim article.
 * Con: Articles in the news, etc. still often use CN when referring to AS.
 * Counter: the Pros above; this should be addressed in the CN and AS articles.

See also discussion at Talk:Blood+

What would you like to change about this?
Collectonian and I are pretty much talking past each other and my edit is being classified as vandalism when it is an editing dispute.

How do you think we can help?
"Consensus" should not be used to support a position without links to said discussions showing consensus. Collectonian should be required to provide links or drop that as justification. I feel I have made a good faith effort to find the discussion (closest I could find was related to project scopes). Without a link to the discussion I cannot read it to determine if I concur with the consensus or reopen it for discussion. At this point I feel this justification is being used in bad faith.

For the purposes of listing which network a show aired on, I think that going by the Nielsen Ratings -- the de facto industry standard -- makes the most sense. Issues about ambiguity and confusion resulting from networks sharing the same channel can -- and should -- be addressed in the articles for those networks. There was controversy surrounding these changes -- as can be seen in Will 'Adult Swim' break out next?(Through The Wire) -- but that's over with now. Nick and Nick at Nite ratings are separate and Turner followed in their footsteps by splitting Adult Swim from Cartoon Network. However, it appears that Collectonian (and others) are refusing to acknowledge/accept this change in the industry, and Wikipedia is suffering because of it.

I would greatly appreciate advice on how to work past these issues (e.g. how can I address the claim of consensus when I cannot find it, should I go to formal arbitration, am I completely off-base, etc. ). Thanks!

Administrative notes
From look of Blood+ talk page (linked above) -- there is no inclination of parties to proceed with mediation. This will be reviewed over the next day and if reaffirmed, the case will be closed. --Reubzz (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus on issue already reached by project involved - see cited talk page. Reubzz (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)