Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Is this a mistake; indefensible?

Considering the definition of a recusal, it is my opinion that Silk Tork significantly erred in posting such a clearly prejudiced case summary and predisposition. I also believe its unambiguous nature precludes justification; hoping this thread does not become a bankrupt strawman—full of eloquent, and dutiful, rhetoric; proffered to defend the indefensible. A professional amends reflecting agreement is required. I hope this is an insightful given when laid before the caliber of user I presume this committee is comprised of. If it is not, I am not only wrong; but very wrong; about too many things—perhaps even completely wrong. Do tell!—John Cline (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

John, except for being sort of clear that you aren't happy about SilkTork's statement, I really can't figure out what you're saying. What does recusal have to do with it? SilkTork didn't recuse; are you saying he should have? "A professional amends reflecting agreement is required"? "I hope this is an insightful given"? Do you mean "I think it should be obvious to everyone that he should apologize"? It appears this is important to you. If that's the case, it would be worth it to take a few minutes and state more clearly what your point is, even if it doesn't sound quite so lofty and dramatic when you're done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I do believe SilkTork should have recused in lieu of posting such bias. I do not expect an apology, although an apology would be in context. I do expect some form of comment to acknowledge a mistake was made. Yes, this is important to me, but furthermore, I think it is important. And yes, I did mean to imply this matter seems rather obvious. Thank you for pointing out the ambiguities in my prose. I hope this clarification has answered you well.—John Cline (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Draft writing guide for filing AE requests

In an effort to get higher quality AE requests and to do a small amount of hand-holding for editors new to this proccess, I've drafted a guide that I would like comments and edits on.--Tznkai (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Classic policy fallacy. NE Ent 15:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Filing as a third-party

There's currently a series of disputes that the community has repeatedly failed to resolve. These disputes are all over Wikipedia, from WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:BLPN, WP:RSN to WP:3RRN and are a huge drain on the community's resources. However, no involved editor has of yet filed a request for an ArbCom case. What's ArbCom's feeling about third-parties filing requests for arbitration? My understanding is that this is frowned upon, but the community has clearly failed to resolved the disputes despite numerous attempts, and there doesn't seem to be any end in sight. Thoughts? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been wondering about this myself. I know of one dispute in particular that was the subject of a past ArbCom case but the behavior of many of the parties is just as nasty now as it was then. I think none of the involved parties wants to request a case because they are scared of the scrutiny that would result. In this case, is it ok for a third party or marginally involved party to request a case? Cla68 (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I've filed third party requests successfully. The pattern to use is, "I noticed this conflict. It's disrupting my ability to improve these articles (list them). Efforts have been made to resolve it through Dispute Resolution (list discussions), but that hasn't work. Can you help put an end to this nonsense?" You don't have to be involved as a disputant in the conflict. If you tried to mediate it, or if the conflict is impacting you in any way, I think the Committee would seriously consider the request. Jehochman ^Talk 03:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly possible to file the case as a third party. However, the challenge is presenting the dispute in a clear way, since you aren't involved in the dispute and may not be the most familiar with it. --Rschen7754 03:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Involved editors have often lost perspective, or else they would have resolved the dispute themselves. It can be very useful for somebody uninvolved to present a neutral summary of the problem. Jehochman ^Talk 03:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes clarification request

Why isn't the Clarification request: Infoboxes, initiated by RexxS on 28 December 2013, showing up in the box named "Arbitration Committee Proceedings" at the top of the Project page? --71.163.153.146 (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It's there now. Thanks. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't know for sure, but I'm guessing it had to do with page caching, as discussed at wp:purge. NE Ent 17:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Now it's been archived. I didn't realize there had been any "decision" made. Guess I'll have to read the archive. Thanks, NE Ent. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I see now. RexxS withdrew his request after discussion and more editors coming to the Deepika P article. So, the closing and archiving to the bottom of the original case is appropriate. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)