Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Index of Principles

I generated a list of the past ~11 years of Principles. It's not curated, not topic-sorted, and quite repetitive, but I think it still might be useful. Would it make sense to move it to the project space and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index? (Posting here because the talk page for /Index redirects here.) --Yair rand (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with you that User:Yair rand/ArbCom principles should be linked from one of the indexing pages. Just now I looked up the 'Accuracy of sourcing' item. (I was looking for 'source falsification' but it turns out that's never been made into a named principle). EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay then.  Done. --Yair rand (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

ARCAs take too long

Apologies if this is not the right place to raise this. I've noticed that ARCAs seem to regularly take longer than full-blown cases to resolve. They last for months and months; and not just this year, but last year, too. I thought ARCA was supposed to be lightweight and faster than a full case? One thing I notice is that full cases have public deadlines, but ARCAs do not. Should we add a deadline to ARCAs? Like, 7 days for statements, 7 days for Arbs to weigh in? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• As a participant in a current case filed last winter and still ongoing as summer approaches, I have first-hand experience with this. I agree with Levivich that this process needs to be limited to a reasonable timeframe. His simple proposal is a sound one, and I urge that it be adopted as quickly as possible. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Speaking as a frequent observer of the public arbitration process due to my role, the trickiest ARCAs take a long time because they're not particularly urgent but still take a lot of time and effort to resolve. Members of the Committee have limited time and a long list of priorities that rank above ARCAs. I have been doing my best to periodically remind arbs of open proceedings but I entirely understand why there are some areas that are often backed up. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Let me preface my remarks by saying I agree, they do take too long. However, I don't think hard deadlines are a good solution unless we change other things in the process as well. Full cases have drafters and clerks assigned to them, they co-ordinate the case and keep it moving, or extend the deadlines if that is needed. ARCA doesn't have any of that, and I'm not at all sure how it would work if it did. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

  It could work like this: give arbs some period of time (two weeks?) to (1) weigh in, (2) say they're not going to weigh in, or (3) say they will weigh in but need more time. Any arb who hasn't said anything is assumed to be in category #2. Action on the ARCA can be freely delayed for anyone in category #3. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'm of the mind that less "paperwork" is better. Clarification shouldn't take long - after all, we typically go there for clarification of their remedies or DS. Amendment may take longer because they may need to restructure/rewrite/modify something - not unlike when I proposed arb recognition of the DS aware template at the top of our user pages. Our tech gurus actually did the template work after the Arbs finally passed it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Fast track the DAILYMAIL issue?

In summary, I think the process of both forming and expressing the consensus of DAILYMAIL has been thoroughly tainted by totally unacceptable conduct, to such an extent that there isn't even any point in pretending this is not already a matter for the Arbitration Committee to resolve, even if that might technically be an impproper act of queue jumping.

I had a hunch that arguing the Daily Mail had not been given a fair shake by Wikipedia would be a tough road on Wikipedia, but even I was amazed to see that gaslighting and censoring was the immediate go to reaction to my efforts.

This is unacceptable. My points are perfectly valid, they deserve to be considered properly, even if they may not be entirely original, and in not doing so, specifically in the manner they are preventing it, the Wikipedia community is effectively proving my suspicions correct.

I have absolutely no confidence that if I raise the gaslighting and censoring as issues for dispute resolution at any stage lower than this Committee, that I will get anywhere at all, because the people doing it are apparently the very same people who would be passing judgement there too, namely Administrative users. I fear that I would be blocked well before I had crossed all the required bridges. I may even be blocked for this simple request, even though it affects nobody who is happy to ignore it as the ravings of a mad man, who knows.

If it is true that issues put before this Committee are the first and only time it is not just expected, but required, for people to prove their claims with evidence, if this is the first and only time where popular opinion won't come into it at all, then is it at all possible to have the issue of DAILYMAIL be considered without all the required prior steps?

Before anyone says it, perhaps as a perfectly innocent reply rather than just more of the same gaslighting, I am well aware the DAILYMAIL issue has had wide participation from Wikipedia editors. But when you're not even allowed to stand behind a true fact, even as a minority of one, such is the apparent fear it induces that pulling at that thread might make the whole thing fall down, even that doesn't mean a decision is right, much less is consensus.

Brian K Horton (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

(I wrote this before I realised Newslinger had asked for me to be banned, which, if he succeeds, will rather prove my point I think). Brian K Horton (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)